COMMANDANT CISF UNIT Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is at the instance of the CISF Unit and the Home department, who seek to assail the order, dated 30-1-2001, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing W. P. No. 18818 of 1988, where under the order, dated 18-5-2003, terminating the services of the respondent herein was sought to be set aside.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the respondent-writ petitioner was working as Security Guard in cisf unit and he joined duty as such on 10-6-1976. While so, the charge levelled against the respondent is that while serving with CISF, mamc Durgapur, on 27-5-1980, he, along with 100 members of the force, wrongfully gheraoed the Commandant, CISF Unit, MAMC durgapur, Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, BOGL Durgapur in the office chamber of the Commandant, CISF Unit, MAMC, Durgapur in order to wrongfully force the Commandant to withdraw the suspension order of three members of the Force belonging to CISF Unit, MAMC, durgapur and the said act was a grave misconduct and an act of gross indiscipline on the part of the respondent. Therefore, in exercise of powers vested with the first respondent (in W. P.), under Rule 29 (a) of the C. I. S. F. Rules, 1969, the respondent was terminated from service with immediate effect. On appeal and on further revision, before the higher authorities, the order of removal has been confirmed. Hence, the respondent filed the writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, after going into the merits of the matter, allowed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the Officer viz. NG Datta Gupa, at whose behest the proceedings were initiated, was not examined and further the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules contemplated, to hold that the respondent was the person who committed the said act. Further the learned Single judge also took into consideration the plea of alibi that the respondent was attending on his wife in MAMC hospital, in support whereof the respondent produced the Out-patient receipt. Therefore, the order of removal was set aside with a direction to the appellants to reinstate the respondent into service with 50% of back wages and further he should be entitled to continuity of service and other service benefits.