Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER was employed by the respondent on security duty. On 4. 4. 1998 he was inflicted the punishment of dismissal from the service. The said order was passed by the respondent pursuant to the power vested in it under Rule 25 of the Standing Orders. Rule reads as under:

"25. Special Procedure in Certain Cases notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order No. 24, the disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Standing order No. 23 in any of the following circumstances: (i) the workman has been convicted on a criminal charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial; or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these Standing Orders; or (iii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the Corporation/company, it is not expedient to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these Standing Orders. "

( 2 ) THE Disciplinary Authority exercised its power under Sub-clause (ii) of the rule and dispensed with an enquiry before passing the order in question.

( 3 ) THE facts which lead to passing of the order were, that on 1. 1. 1997, petitioner was deputed at the residence of Shri B. N. Ojha, Director (Operation) at his residence in the Asian Village Residential Complex. A report was received that the petitioner had indulged in certain unnatural acts with a child by leaving his place of duty without permission. The child aged six years named Kausar, was residing in the garage attached to Flat No. 173 of the same complex. The petitioner was allegedly caught red handed by the parents of the child and some neighbourers.

( 4 ) WHEN the incident was reported to the respondent, it was processed and vide order dated 7. 11. 1997, petitioner was placed under suspension.

( 5 ) A show cause notice dated 20. 11. 1997 was issued to the petitioner. It was stated in the notice to show cause that petitioner had indulged in the act of molestation of Kausar between 2-2. 30 p. m. He was caught red-handed by the parents of the child and some neighbourers. The matter was very serious and keeping in mind the psyche of the child and the request of the parents that confidentiality be maintained, the petitioner was being put to notice as to why he be not dismissed from service.

( 6 ) PETITIONER sent his reply dated 10. 2. 1998. He denied the charge. He pointed out that in the suspension order, time of incident was mentioned between 12 and 12. 30 noon whereas in the show cause notice the time mentioned was 2-2. 30 p. m. Petitioner took the stand that the story was totally fabricated. The Competent authority considered the matter and proceeded to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal was communicated to the petitioner under cover of letter dated 4. 4. 1998 written by the Deputy Manager (Panda ).

( 7 ) PETITIONER filed an appeal dated 21. 4. 1998. The same was dismissed on 12. 11. 1999. The present petition, was filed during the pendency of the appeal. Prayer made is that the order dated 4. 4. 1998 be set aside or in the alternative, directions be issued to the respondent to decide the appeal.

( 8 ) AS regards the alternative prayer, appeal stood decided on 12. 11. 1999 during the pendency of the writ petition. The said fact was communicated to the petitioner.

( 9 ) THREE contentions have been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner at the hearing. The first contention raised was that no case was made out to proceed against the petitioner under Rule 25. The second contention was that there was no material before the authorities to take action and the third contention raised was that the order of termination was passed by the Deputy Manager (Panda ). The Competent authority of the petitioner was the Deputy General Manager who alone was empowered to act as the Dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document