RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.L. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Srivastava, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'RPF') in the year 1985. While he was posted at Railway Junction Naini, Allahabad, a First Information Report was lodged on 5th May, 1985, under Section /7, Essential Commodities Act, which was registered as Case Crime No. 187 of 1985 at Police Station Naini, Allahabad. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was arrested on 5th/6th May, 1985 and was sent to Jail and remained in Jail for a period of 26 days. After the release on Bail, the petitioner reported for joining of his duties on 11th June, 1985. He was placed under suspension on the ground that he was detained in custody for a period of 26 days. 3. The petitioner was arrested while sitting in a Truck No. UPD- 105, loaded with 300 bags of cement. The cement was also seized by the Police. It appears that one Lalji Singh claimed himself to be the owner of the cement and an application was moved by him before the Additional Collector, Allahabad for release of the cement. The said 300 bags of cement was released in favour of Lalji Singh by the Additional Collector, Allahabad by the order dated 31st July, 1985 on furnishing of two securities of Rs.15,000.00 and further on the condition that he will deposit value of the cement in case if any claim is being made in this regard.
(3.) IT appears that the said suspension order has been revoked by the Divisional Security Commissioner vide his order dated 31st January, 1991. However, an enquiry proceeding was initiated against him and on 24th April, 1991, a chargesheet was given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the reply to the chargesheet and denied the charges levelled against him. It appears that the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and therefore ordered for the disciplinary enquiry and appointed one Sri L.P. Yadav as the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted the report on 21st May, 1992. He found that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet were false and frivolous and not proved against the petitioner. The enquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary authority.;