ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

(i) Orders Ann.P/1 and Ann.P/2 be quashed as illegal, arbitrary and malafide.

(ii) Respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner along with back wages. As the petitioner is not gainfully employed any where

(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be allowed in favour of the petitioners.

(iv) The cost of the petition may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner.

2. It is an unfortunate case which has suffered because of noncooperation by the Advocates.

3. On 9.5.2007, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, by order dated 13.8.2010, the case was restored. Again by order dated 13.3.2013, the case was dismissed on a statement made by counsel for petitioner that he has no instructions. The writ petition was again restored by order dated 22.9.2015. On 26.9.2022, when the case was taken up, a statement made by counsel for petitioner that the arguing counsel is on his legs before Division Bench of the Court and prayed for time and accordingly the case was adjourned and was directed to be listed in week commencing 31.10.2022. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 28.11.2022 and the counsel for petitioner made a statement that although he had filed his vakalatnama on 2.3.2021 but he has not prepared the case and, accordingly, this Court may decide the case after going through the writ petition.

4. Be that whatever it may.

5. It is for the petitioner to decide as to whether he wants to take any action against his counsel or not.

6. The facts of the present case in short are that the petitioner was working on the post of APCD in the Office of Director, Public Prosecution, State of Madhya Pradesh. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him and ultimately by order dated 28.5.2003, he was removed from service. Being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by order dated 26.09.2004. It appears that thereafter the petitioner preferred a writ petition i.e. W.P (S) No. 796/2005 before the Principal Seat of this Court which was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and accordingly, this petition has been filed before this Court.

7. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of APCD on 28.11.1990. In the year 2000, he was given a charge-sheet on two charges. The charge-sheet was probably based on the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges and categorically denied the same. Accordingly, a departmental enquiry was instituted against him. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and without recording the plea of the petitioner, the enquiry proceedings were initiated and the enquiry officer recorded the statement of the complainant as no presenting officer was appointed. During the pendency of the enqiury, the enquiry officer was changed and one Shri Majid Khan was appointed as enquiry officer who took over the work of enquiry officer on 24.1.2001.

8. The enquiry officer did not bother to see as to whether the summons have been actually served to the petitioner or not and without considering the reasons for absence of petitioner, he proceeded ex-parte against petitioner. It is submitted that in fact the process server Surendra Singh had an enmity with petitioner and therefore he had given a false service report to the enquiry officer. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer are vitiated and are not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The statement of the witnesses have been accepted without any sound basis. After the enquiry report was submitted, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 15.1.2003 and petitioner submitted his detailed reply but while passing the impugned order dated 28.5.2003, the respondent No.2 did n