Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) It appears to this court that the writ petitioner No. 1 employees of Eastern Railway Protection Force, challenged the Order of Chief Security Commissioner/RPF/Eastern Railway/Calcutta dated 24th December, 1996.
(2.) It further appears to this court that the appeal was rejected on the following grounds : (a) That the petitioner has not cone with new ground or point his petition; (b) Essential documents had duly been supplied to the petitioner during enquiry for cross examination, such point is not correct; (c) Reasonable opportunity of hearing during the enquiry was given, therefore, there is no irregularity; (d) Challenge of the petitioner that the bags of urea were not stolen from the appropriate wagon stated therein is not correct; (e) It is also not correct to say that such wagon was within the duty beat and duty period of the petitioner ; (f) Urea bags were recovered from the criminals within the beat of the petitioner; (g) If it in this case is clear enough and weigh against the petitioner; (h) Opportunity was given, enquiry was proceeded. The delinquent becomes guilty of charge and disciplinary authority remove from serving agreeing with the finding of Enquiry Officer; (i) The charge is thus proved beyond reasonable doubt; (j) No further ground has been taken to interfere with the same;
(3.) Therefore, the original order was upheld. Such order was passed by the Appellate Authority in obedience to the order of this High Court dated 4th November, 1996 where a Bench of this Court held that as per Rule 220 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, the Appellate Authority is duty bound to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law as early as possible within three months from the date of receipt of the appeal. The court was displeased with the attitude of the Appellate Authority and directed to complete the course of action within a specified time. This writ petition is made challenging such order.;