NARENDRA DUTTA RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the case of a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. He is the appellant in this appeal. He was deployed in the unit CPM, Panchgram (Assam). On 29th July, 2005, he was given shift duty from 1 O' clock in the afternoon till 9 O' clock at night at the new gate duty post. At about 5 O' clock in the afternoon the shift inspector-in-charge informed the Company Commander/Inspector, Rahatu Lal that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol and unable to perform his duty properly. He was withdrawn from duty and another constable deployed in his place. Thereafter, in a jeep accompanied by Inspector Rahatu Lal and other officials from the Central Industrial Security Force, he was taken to the Cachar Paper Mill Hospital of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. He was brought in to this hospital at 6.30 p.m. It was alleged that while travelling in the jeep he told Rahatu Lal "touching his body that he would kill him, if he lost his job." The doctor at the hospital examined him and wrote out a prescription as follows:- "irrelevant talks - abnormal behaviour - smell of alcohol, B.P - 130/90, Chest - clear, Abd - NAD."

(2.) On 31st October, 2005, a memorandum of charges was drawn up against him. The first related to the alleged influence of alcohol while on duty. The second was with regard to touching the person of his superior Rahatu Lal and uttering abusive words. The third accused him of being a habitual offender as between 10th July, 1996 and 23rd July, 2005 he was awarded 13 punishments.

(3.) On 5th December, 2005, the appellant filed his written reply to the said charges. A full fledged regular departmental enquiry was started against him. The Deputy Commandant of the CISF Unit, CPM, Panchgram (Assam) was appointed as the enquiry officer. The Group Commandant, CISF group, head quarters, Guwahati was appointed as the disciplinary authority. In the enquiry, eleven witnesses for the prosecution were examined. Nine documents were exhibited. Rahatu Lal was the first witness (PW 1). The appellant did not adduce any evidence. The enquiry report dated 8th March, 2006 was against him. The enquiry officer held him guilty of all the charges.