LAWS(CAL)-2007-12-41

MD IMRAN ALI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On December 20, 2007
MD.IMRAN ALI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against a judgment and order of the learned state Administrative Tribunal, passed in O. A. No. 1033 of 2001, whereby and whereuncler the petitioner's application against order of punishment of dismissal was dismissed. The fact leading to filing of this application before the learned Tribunal was as follows.

(2.) THE petitioner was chargesheeted on or about 10th November, 1997 for drawing up a disciplinary proceedings against him on the imputation of charges that on 14th/15'h November, 1996 at night the applicant left police camp for night petrol duty with another NVF namely Haradhan Mondal with arms and ammunition at about 00. 01 hours. While the applicant was on the said duty on pucca road near Jalangi Bazar he met a smuggler, moyej Mondal, and on his request the applicant compelled Haradhan Mondal to accompany the said smuggler to Biswaspara to call some labourers to lift 30 bags of sugar from the godown of Netai Mondal and others for smuggling to Bangladesh, while the said NVF had been to Biswaspara with the smuggler he met four unknown dacoits in the house of one Kaimuddin Mondal and they caught hold of Haradhan, and snatched his Government rifle and ammunitions from his possession.

(3.) FURTHER imputation of charges against the applicant is that he allowed two home-guards Ratan Mondal and Prasanla Chatterjee while both of them were in the same camp, to go home before two and three days before incident, although the applicant had no power to spare them. Untimely the applicant recorded both the home-guards as being absent from the camp on 14th november, 1996 to save themselves from such illegal acts. On receipt of the charge-sheet the applicant briefly denied the allegations. Therefore, the enquiry proceedings was drawn up by appointing Enquiry Officer who after having examined a number of witnesses and on analysis of evidence found the applicant guilty of both the charges. The conclusion arrived at by the enquiry Officer quoting his own language is as follows: