R DEBNATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated-28.05.2003 (Annexure-6), passed by his Disciplinary Authority by which the petitioner was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement and stoppage of salary for the suspension period between 26.08.2002 to 25.08.2003. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, by which the petitioner's appeal against the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority was rejected.

(3.) The petitioner was employed as a Constable in the C.I.S.F. On 23.08.2002, he was posted on Guard duty in the second shift at the Regional Stores, Godhar. On the same night, a theft had occurred and substantial quantities of materials were stolen away by miscreants from the stores. On three specific charges, namely, (i) dereliction of duty, (ii) handing over charge of office to his reliever without making verification of the materials in the stores and (iii) repeated acts of misconduct in spite of the number of the minor punishment awarded against him in the past, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. His explanations to the charges was not found satisfactory. The petitioner was admittedly offered opportunity to participate in the enquiry and to defend his case. The Enquiry Officer, relying upon the evidences adduced by the prosecution's witnesses, recorded his finding of guilt, declaring that all the three charges against the petitioner stood proved. The petitioner was thereafter served a copy of the Enquiry Report along with a show-cause notice to explain against the proposed punishment. The explanations, which he had offered was though considered, but finding the same not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report, had awarded the punishment mentioned above. The petitioner thereafter filed his Appeal against the order of his removal from service, before the Appellate Authority but by the impugned order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders, both of the Disciplinary Authority as also of the Appellate Authority, on the ground that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and not in consonance with the weight of evidences on record.