1997 (2) TMI 549

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 49 charges proved. A show-cause notice dated 4.5.88 was issued calling upon the respondent to show-cause why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering his explanation, he was dismissed from service by proceedings dated 25.5.88. The respondent challenged the said order by way of writ petition. One of the contention urged before the learned Single Judge was that the order of suspension as well as order of dismissal was not passed by the Chairman but by some other incompetent authority. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge in the following words: In the counter it is stated that the charge memo was issued with the approval of the Chairman and the enquiry officer was also appointed with the approval of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ority of the Chairman. The Division Bench, however, was of the opinion that since it is not in a position to verify the correctness of the contention urged by the respondent (appellant before them) in view of the non-availability of the fire, the respondent should be given the total benefits to which he was entitled had he retired on the completion of age of superannuation. This is what the Division Bench observed: Although it is the usual administrative practice for the Chief Executive Officer to issue formal orders after obtaining on the note file the orders of the competent authority, in the present case was are unable to verify this fact due to absence of the file, which as already stated supra, was misplaced. In view of this linger .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bmission. The learned Single Judge has specifically and clearly recorded in his Judgment that he has perused the records and that all the proceedings commencing from the order of suspension to the date of the impugned order were taken with the approval of the Chairman and that the 'note file' does contain the signature of the Chairman showing that the impugned order of dismissal was issued by the Chairman. We see no reason why the said statement should be doubted. The statement found in the Judgment should be accepted as correct. The contention of the respondent to the contrary could not have been countenanced in the face of the said statement in the Judgment. We are, therefore, of the said statement in the Judgment. We are, there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X