THE UNION OF INDIA Vs. ZILEH SINGH SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.04.2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4860 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application of the respondent/petitioner.

(2.) IN the aforesaid writ application the respondent/petitioner stated that he was posted as Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, DSP, Durgapur and on 10.06.2005 theft of nut coke by a dumper took place; that on receiving the information from the General Manager (Service) the respondent/petitioner directed Sri K.K. Singh, the Commandant to apprehend the driver and his accomplices; that Sri K.K. Singh immediately rushed and saw the said dumper and on checking the dumper, found to be empty and brought the dumper alongwith the driver, Sheikh Mustaza, to the CISF complex and information of the same was sent to the General Manager who, alongwith other officials came to CISF complex of Durgapur Steel Plant in the meantime, the police of Durgapur Police Station also arrived and the driver was interrogated and the dumper and driver was handed over to the police on 10.06.2005; that the written complaint was sent to the petitioner after endorsement by the petitioner and on the basis of the complaint an F.I.R. was drawn. On the direction of the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by P.K. Basu, Asstt Commandant; that the petitioner had also suspended 6 CISF personnel and he had sent the incident report to the Force Headquarters on 11.06.2005 and a second report on 12.06.2005 vide message Nos. 547, 550 and 551 respectively; that the petitioner was transferred on 14.06.2005 to Force Headquarters, New Delhi and he relinquished his charge on 16.06.2005; by that time Sri P.K. Basu had not submitted the preliminary enquiry report that since the petitioner had relinquished his charge, he could not submit any further report. It is alleged that appellant/respondent No. 6 conducted a second preliminary enquiry and the respondent/petitioner was not examined in the second preliminary enquiry; that there was no occasion for setting up a second preliminary enquiry as the respondent/petitioner had already ordered for a preliminary enquiry. It is alleged that appellant/respondent No. 6 was biased as the respondent/petitioner had filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1504/2003 before Calcutta High Court whereafter the promotion of appellant/respondent No. 6 was made conditional subject to the final result of the writ petition. That the appellant/respondent No. 6 motivatedly conducted the second preliminary enquiry to falsely implicate the petitioner/respondent.

(3.) ON the said ground, the respondent/petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition praying for quashing of the entire departmental proceedings including the charge sheet alleging that the same has been initiated on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the appellant/respondent No. 6, who is biased, as his promotion has become conditional on account of the writ filed by the petitioner/respondent and the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition.