HIRENDRA NATH HALDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner files this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the charge-sheet dated October 31, 2000, enquiry report dated September 7, 2002, the final order dated October 10, 2002 as also the order dated May 13, 2003 passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) The fact of the case is this the petitioner was a constable of Industrial Security Force. While he was posted at Farakka Barrage Project, Farakka in the District of Murshidabad a charge-sheet dated October 31, 2000 was served upon him. The charges levelled against the petitioner on the basis of the above charge-sheet were that while he was on duty at mechanical stores at Farakka Barrage Project Workshops on September 5, 2000, a theft took place at his place of duty due to his gross negligence. The second charge was that he was habitual offender for which he had previously earned punishments on seven occasions. The petitioner submitted a representation dated February 11, 2002 to the Enquiry Officer for supply of certain documentary evidences. But the Enquiry Officer refused to supply him those records. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated February 23, 2002 to the disciplinary authority for change of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority as per his communication dated March 10, 2002 rejected such prayer. When the enquiry proceeding was in progress, the prosecution witness No. 7, A.S.I., B.V.V. Satyanarayana submitted a representation to the disciplinary authority raising a complain against the Enquiry Officer with regard to recording of evidences. The petitioner further filed a written defence statement dated August 19, 2002 to the Enquiry Officer. Then the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated September 7, 2002 to the disciplinary authority a copy of which was sent to the petitioner giving an opportunity to him to submit representation. The petitioner submitted his representation dated October 4, 2002 to the above enquiry report. Then the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated October 10, 2002 in the matter removing the petitioner from the service. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated October 10, 2002 against the final order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority against him before the appellate authority. The appellate authority as per order dated May 13, 2003 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Hence this writ application.

(3.) Mr. Achin Majumder, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner with closed mind because in the charge-sheet it was stated that it was established that the petitioner was a habitual indiscipline incorrigible member of the force, the offence committed by the petitioner amounted to gross misconduct and there was no mark of improvement on the part of the petitioner for performance of security duty/discipline. The second submission of Mr. Majumder is this the list of documents and list of witnesses relating to the first charge was not supplied to the petitioner. The charge-sheet is liable to be set aside on the above two grounds. The next submission of Mr.Majumder is this though there was a representation of the petitioner to change the Enquiry Officer, no step was taken to that effect. Further the prosecution witnesses No. 7 also raised a complain regarding the transparency of the procedure followed in course of enquiry proceeding but the disciplinary authority did not pay any hit to the same. Mr. Majumdar submits that the enquiry report is liable to be set aside on another ground that the relevant documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in preparing the enquiry report were not supplied to the petitioner. Mr. Majumder further submits that the Enquiry Officer allowed four additional witnesses and took into consideration additional documents without furnishing the list of the same to the petitioner. And as such the enquiry report is liable to be set aside. Mr. Majumder frther submits that though all the aforesaid irregularities were mentioned in the reply to the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority did not take into consideration those factors while imposing the punishment upon the petitioner by passing the impugned order of punishment dated October 10, 2002. As such the same is liable to be set aside. With regard to the order passed by the appellate authority, Mr. Majumder submits that the same is a non-speaking order as such the same is liable to be dismissed.