Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) This appeal is against the judgment and order dated May 10, 1991 passed by a learned Judge of this Court on a writ petition which was registered as Civil Rule No. 16229 (W) of 1985. Respondent No. 1 in this appeal was the writ Petitioner. The writ Petitioner challenged his dismissal from service. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Judge set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with all back wages.
(2.) On May 1, 1980 the writ Petitioner was appointed as constable in Central Industrial Security Forces Unit of Durgapur Steel Plant. On June 25, 1984 he was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. A charge -sheet dated July 12, 1984 was served on the writ Petitioner. The charges were as follows: Article of charge No. 1. No. 8017882 Constable R.B. Ojha was detailed for 'A' shift duty at vehicle gate on 21.06.84 from 06.00 hrs. to 14.00 hrs. to control and check the incoming vehicles to the plant. During his duty at 09.15 hrs. he allowed one unauthorised truck No. BRW -7417 inside the plant willingly and dishonestly in which a theft of 05.440 M.T. of Steel Scrap, valued Rs. 10,880/ - took place. Article of charge No. II. No. 8017882 Constable R.B. Ojha while performing duty at Vehicle Gate on 21.6.84, he dishonestly allowed one unauthorised truck No. BRW -7417 giving a false entry slip, putting his own signature and with office stamp by which the truck lifted 05.440 M.T. of Steel scrap from SMS pit site with an intention to take those materials out of the Plant unauthorisedly. Article of charge No. III. No. 8017882 Constable R.B. Ojha while on duty at Vehicle Gate on 21.6.84, he dishonestly allowed the said truck at 09 -15 hrs. without recording it in the vehicle register maintained at the Vehicle Gate.
(3.) Following the procedure for imposing major penalties as laid down in Rule 34 of The Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short 'the C.I.S.F. Rules, 1969) an enquiry was held. The writ Petitioner participated in the enquiry. Witnesses were examined and cross -examined. Documents were exhibited. On conclusion of the enquiry, the inquiring authority submitted its report dated December 16, 1984. The inquiring authority in its findings recorded that while charge Nos. 1 and 3 stood proved, the writ Petitioner was entitled to benefit of doubt regarding charge No. 2.;