IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1151 of 2003
Byomkesh Mishra ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Hindustan Copper Ltd. & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S.Mazumdar,
Mr. J.Mazumdar &
Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. P.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
------
4/ 09.1.2009
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction from
this Hon’ble Court or particularly a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order dated 11.11.2002 passed
by the General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority
(respondent No. 2), whereby and whereunder the appeal
preferred by the petitioner pursuant to liberty given in L.P.A.
No. 107 of 1995 (R) by this Hon’ble Court has been
dismissed, without considering the appeal preferred by the
petitioner properly and in light of the liberty given by this
Hon’ble Court in L.P.A. No. 107 of 1995 (R) since the control
register, detailed order sheet etc. has not been served and
shown to the petitioner,
ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction from
this Hon’ble Court commanding upon the concerned
respondent to immediately and forthwith reinstate the
petitioner in service and treat his service as continuous and
without any break,
iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction from
this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the order dated
18.12.1992 passed by respondent No. 3 whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed.
The main contention raised by the petitioner now is that he
has not been supplied with certain documents and the complete
deposition and only summary report was given. However, the order
of remand by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in L.P.A. No.
107 of 1995 (R) dated 2.7.2002, which is Annexure-27 at page 132
the main contention raised by the petitioner was that
2.
the complete enquiry report was not given and only six pages were
given whereas the enquiry report consisted of 66 pages. In these
backgrounds the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the
learned Single Judge while allowing the appeal and liberty was
given to prefer appeal before the competent authority. Thereafter
the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order of
dismissal which has been rejected vide impugned order dated
11.11.2002 after applying the complete set of enquiry report. New
ground is being raised now which cannot be sustained at this stage
that he has been given the summary report.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the order of the appellate authority which has
been enacted upon, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is
accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)
D.S.