RAPPAI Vs. GROUP COMMANDANT C I S F

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the petitioner was serving as Head Constable in C.I.S.F. Unit, DSP, Durgapur, he submitted a petition dated 16.11.1983 to Commandant (Plant), C.I.S.F. Unit, Durgapur stating that the Company Commander was indulging in corrupt practices. A preliminary enquiry into the allegations contained in the above complaint was ordered and Asst. Commandant, C.I.S.F., Unit, D.S.P., Durgapur who enquired into the matter submitted his report to Commandant concerned. It was stated in the said enquiry report that the complaints made by the petitioner were baseless and false. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with a memo of charges dated 18.12.1983 under R.35 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules (for short CISF Rules), 1969 to show cause why penalty as contemplated in the rules should not be imposed on him for his indisciplined conduct of making unfounded allegations against his superiors. Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the charges against him. The explanation of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and Ext. P1 order dated 16.12.1983 was passed by the Commandant (Plant) D.S.P., Durgapur imposing the penalty of 'Censure'.

(2.) Against Ext. P1, petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General contending that he was found guilty based on the preliminary enquiry which was conducted behind his back. The Appellate Authority set aside Ext. P1 and ordered that fresh proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner as contemplated under R.34 of the CISF Rules. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court of Calcutta and that Writ Petition was disposed of quashing the order of the Appellate Authority and directing fresh enquiry if at all deemed necessary to be held under O.34 of the C.I.S.F. Rules strictly in accordance with law within a specified time limit. Thereafter, fresh charge memo was issued to the petitioner under R.34 of the CISF Rules. The charge reads as follows:

(3.) Against the issuance of the above charge memo, the petitioner once again approached the High Court of Calcutta. In the said Writ Petition, the department was directed to proceed with the enquiry, but passing of the final orders in the enquiry was stayed and made subject to the result of the Writ Petition. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the memo of charges denying the allegation that he had committed indiscipline and other misconduct. Thereupon an enquiry was conducted by M. S. Rai, Deputy Commandant, CISF, Duliajan as directed by the disciplinary authority. In that enquiry one witness was examined in support of the charges. Petitioner himself gave evidence in the enquiry in support of the defence. He, however, did not examine any other person as a defence witness.