WWWW NPNQ bOLJ J. Wm$ ems!m (W) mmmwéa ‘ ’ mm#mm $Wanéat 1 against tho poiitionar. Ho has aiso prayod that a direction bn i sued to the respondents to give the wages and other benefits to L e petitioner. The case. of the petitio er is that he was wOrking as Junior Mining Engineer in the res ondents’ Company. He was earlier - appoixlted as Junior Engilm r Traine6 on 19.9.1990. During the course of employment, the from the rolls 0f the com employment by the responde. healing: Against the respondents, the petitioner 1995 and as the appeal was preferred a writ petition vide The aforesaid writ petj Court on 11.12.2003. This disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the concerned respondent to consider and decided, as earlyas possible 2&19.2095 Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, cc unsel for ths petitiona: Heard 0:1 admission. By way of this writ patition {116d LmdEr Article 226,! 227 of ihe Constitution of India, me. potitioner has ’prayod for issuallcs ofwrit in tho nature of maadamus directing fhe respondents to 11ot mitiate ally disciplinaly acti ine of the petitioner was removed y and. he was removed from the its without giving any opportunity of resaid action of removal by the d preferred an appeal in the year ot decided till the year 200 1, he had .P, No. 739 of2001. 'ion came up for hearing before this Court Vide order dated 11.12.2003 decide the appeal, if already not preferably within 3 months from the /‘. m o L p! i m 1 o a WKMm 5o Lg 1W , /mm S mmirm amm'am ' mmmama .. WW§WW date of production of th 11.12.2003, in the aforesaid M.C‘C. 0' preferred by fhC p€tition¢r authority vide impugned i The. operative part of the in ”Now, Managing Director, C Satish Kumar Thdku proceedings should A 2} ‘ mwf'anmu» r a caiifiiied cop 0f the ordm" dated y aps thg‘ afomsaid ordér could not be, 0116 M.C.C. vide. No. 49 of 2004 was is Court a 4.2.2005 gmd thereafter, thi: appeal was decidcdrby t11€ C(mcarned appgllam )rdar datad 12.5.2005 (AnneXurE—Pi' 4). 11pug11ad order reads as under: therefore: the undeysigned, Chaiiman-cum— oal India Limited] is of the view that Shri r should be reinstated and. departmental 2e initiated against him binnediateiy and accordingly the undersigned hereby directs:— a) Letter datdd 03.09. 1 993 issued by SECL is revoked. ‘h Kumar Thakur is reinstated with effect subject to Medicatjftness. i9) Shri Satis immediate initiated in e) Interyem'm The repr'eser; amnection stands e it is after passing c the impugned order, “a t agailast the petitiener ant proceeding against Shri Thakur for his ed/habiiuaf absence from the duty be Lmediatezy, ; peried shat? be treated as dies—non. ‘ ’aiion of Shit Satfeh Kum’ar Thakur in this lisposed of. "' f the aforesaid order, as per term N0. d of lisciph'nayy pmceeding is to be initiated i 110w the petitioner comee up in this writ M it appears that perh compiied in time, therefore, filed by the S.E.C;L. and certain orders were passed by th dc) He must re portfor duty within 30 days. d) Disciplinary unwihmie SP/FS/z'oos - 26,006 WWW? (W) a Xl-HC—78 Nwgow 2w ‘trmmwm'ai 26 Sm 200 armm (W) mm «Paw-r amt 3 r p€tition that the aforwaid t1 initiated. By thE impugned app 1~€instat€d in Sawica and I am ‘dGcision through. tlm disciph' of the. absance of the petitio; i11itiat€ ‘fhe discipljnaly pro order dated 12.5.2005, no it! not inclined to inteifere with i The petition has 110 n stage. There shall be no ordei WW#WW $Wanéa isciph'naiy‘ proceeding should not be illate Oltier, the petitioner has been of the opinion that there should be a nary proceeding regarding the period lei“. If the authorities are iiicliued to ceeding as per impugned appeilate ‘egularity is committed by them. I am he impugned order at this stage. Lelits. it is dismissed at die'motion s as to costs. /