Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, J. - (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceedings culminated in the order of removal of the petitioner and the order of rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Rakshak, Railway Protection Force, in the year 1956. In the year 1958, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Rakshak. He was charge-sheeted in 1973 and removed from service in 1975. From the report of the R.P.F., Asansol, it appears that in respect of recovery of about 25 kgs. sugar along with empty bag and one wrapper in the receiving yard, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. It appears from the report of the Enquiry Officer , as to why the said Charge-sheet was issued on March 17, 1973. He has recorded as follows: "On receipt of the report of OC/RPF/ASN in respect of recovery of about 25 kgs. sugar along with empty Jhola and one chander in the Dn. Receiving yard in the night of February 10-11, 1973 fixing up responsibility on SR 4211 Bishnu Pd. ASO/ASN a charge sheet to the SR vide No. PF/39/73 dt. March 17, 1973 under Rule 44 on the charge framed against him as appended below: CHARGE "For gross neglect of duty in that on February 11, 1973 while he was on seal checking duty in Dn. Receiving yard from 11 ms. 1008 co. ims he failed to detect and prevent theft of sugar weighing about 25 kgs which subsequently recovered, during his duty period. The petitioner submitted his reply on June 29, 1973 in Hindi. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer enquired into the said allegations made against the petitioner. The reasoning and findings of the Enquiry Officer are as follows:- Reasons for finding: On scrutiny of the statements of P. Ms and D.Ws and going through the available records I am convinced that the theft took place in the yard in connivance with the team of R.P.F. staff posted in the Dn. Receiving yard. The similess and ineffective round in the yard by the A.S.I. plea of checking the load by the S.R. and performance of R.K. near the bridge far from the stable wagons with available contents suspected the integrity of the staff. Although S.I. Rajeshwar Singh after detection of the case tried to give some benefit to the accused person not preparing seizure list on the spot with the plea of not detection of victimised wagon, it is convinced that the theft took place in the yard in connivance with the A.S.I.S.R. and on duty or near Patrol. Therefore, the S.R. was responsible for theft and the charge is established."
(3.) Thereafter the Disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice under Rule 4(10)(2) of the Railway Protection Force Rules and recor-ded as follows: - "Perused the findings of E.O. and find that the charge framed against S.R./Bishnu Prosad has been established during the proceeding enquiry. I do agree with E.O.'s findings and hold him guilty and consider that he is not a fit person to be retained in the Force and thus he should be removed from service. A show cause notice under rules may be issued to him accordingly.";