V.C.MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri M.M. Khan learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sushil Kumar Srivastava learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 16.2.1989, 7.3.1990 and 18.3.1999 passed by the respondents 4, 3 and 2 respectively to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and other consequential benefits admissible to the post of constable of Railway Protection Force on the grounds that the disciplinary authority had not arrived at a right conclusions on the basis of evidence on record. Following charges were framed against the petitioner : "He is charged for remissness/negligence in the discharge of his duty in that on 25.3.1988, he consumed liquor while returning from duty by 2 SM Passenger train even after Gd. Commander asked him not to do so. He neglected security of arms and ammunition issued to him, which were taken by Gd. Commander Jagdamba Singh Gd. Cons, in his duty." His act tantamount to serious misconduct and render him unfit for the job. The Inquiry Officer found that charges No. 1 and 3 were not proved. Charge No. 2 regarding putting the security of the weapons in jeopardy by the petitioner while taking medicine from outside without being prescribed by a registered medical practitioner. The said' weapon and the cartridges of the petitioner were deposited by one constable Kartar Singh.
(3.) THE Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 16.2.1989 on the basis of the charges framed against the petitioner and the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that the petitioner being new in service and it being his first default, a lenient view be taken and awarded a punishment of withholding of increment of pay (WIP) for three years. However, vide order dated 7.3.1990 by Additional Chief Security Commissioner respondent No, 3 thereafter issued again a fresh show cause notice dated 26.9.1989 suo moto and reviewed the proposal for enhancement of the punishment already awarded vide order dated 16.2.1989. It found that the points mentioned in petitioners' reply were only repetition of his earlier reply and he had not convincingly, discharged his duty and neglected the arms and ammunition as a member of the disciplinary forces and awarded the punishment by his removal from service with immediate effect.;