HIRDEO PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Jai Prakash Pandey and Mr. M.M. Prasad learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner, in the instant case, has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.3.1993 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone, by reason whereof the appeal filed by the petitioner against his order of dismissal from service has been rejected. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments has submitted that consequently the dismissal of the petitioner be also set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) IN the statements of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour, in support of the aforementioned articles of charges, it was further mentioned and it was stated that the petitioner was sitting and dozing in the manner stated above keeping a tin sheet (1 x 4) on the left side (Western Side) which obstructed the vision of on -duty, constable who found the perimeter wall/ fencing towards the Western Side checked by Inspector/Exe. T. Chakraborty. When questioned by the said Inspector T. Chakraborty, the petitioner became angry and took out his short "lathi" and assaulted him, as a result whereof, the latter sustained injury, which was again, said to be misconduct within the meaning of Section 18 of the C.I.S.F. Act, 1968.