- (1.) THE petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated May 10, 2006 is questioning an order of the disciplinary authority dated May 8, 2003 (at p.61) inflicting the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect affirmed by the appellate and revising authorities by orders dated August 7, 2003 (at p.84) and March 4, 2004(at p. 130) respectively.
(2.) WHILE working as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short CISF) the petitioner was suspended with effect from November 15, 2002. The disciplinary authority issued a charge-sheet dated November 19, 2002 making the following allegation: "That No.004340182 Constable R. K. Sharma of CISF Unit, NSCBI Airport Kolkata entered in the International Terminal Building at about 2200 hrs on 12.11.2002 without any official business and indulged himself in a scuffle with Si/Fire Rajesh Kumar who was detailed at MEDH(ITB) by way of catching hold the uniform of the latter in the visitor's Lounge of International Terminal Building in presence of visitors, passengers and employees of Airport Authority, thus, No. 004340182 Constable R. K. Sharma committed an act of gross indiscipline, misconduct, insubordination and tarnished the image of the Force." The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiring authority. While on behalf of the disciplinary authority four witnesses were examined, the petitioner examined two witnesses in proof of his case that he did not catch hold of uniform of Si/Fire Rajesh Kumar and engage himself in scuffles with the officer as alleged in the charge-sheet. The inquiring authority submitted a report dated April 5, 2003 that the charge was proved.
(3.) ACCEPTING the findings of the inquiring authority the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of removal from service and the petitioner's statutory appeal and revision application were rejected by the respective authorities. The admitted position is that the revision application and the appeal decided on the basis of parawise comments submitted on behalf of the disciplinary authority behind the petitioner's back were rejected by the respective authorities without disclosing to the petitioner what case was submitted by the disciplinary authority and also without giving him opportunity of hearing.;