JOYMALYA BAGCHI,J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the enquiry report submitted by the Inspector respondent no. 6/EXC Central Industrial Security Force Unit ECL Seetalpur, final order dated 1st April, 2011 passed by the respondent no. 4, Senior Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, accepting the enquiry report and passing an order of punishment of "removal from service " and the appellate order dated 5th July, 2011 passed by the respondent no. 3, the Deputy Inspector General/Nez, Central Industrial Security Force affirming the said final order of respondent no. 4 herein.
(2.) THE facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF in short) and was posted at ECL, Seetalpur (H.Q.), Burdwan. On 7th of January, 2011 by a memo dated 07.01.2011 issued by Senior Commandant, CISF, respondent no. 4 herein, the petitioner was charged as follows : Article of charge � I On 23.12.2010 at about 0800 hrs. No. 071023843 Constable Mukesh Kumar Tiwary of CISF Unit ECL Seetalpur (STP HQs) deliberately absented himself from Inspection Parade of the DIG, CISF NEZ HQs Kolkata as well as Unit line without any information/permission to/from the Competent Authority and he also absented himself from 'B ' shift duty on 23.12.2010 from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs. In this regard, several GD entries had been made at Control Room vide Sl. No. (690) at 1316 hrs, No. (693) at 1745 hrs, No. (695) at 2015 hrs and No. (700) at 2115 hrs dated 23.12.2010. Being absence from Unit line, he went to the house of Smt. Mousumi Sarkar, teacher of Sitarampur Harihar Girls ' School, W/o Shri Santosh Sarkar at Bishnubihar Colony, Niyamatpur, P.S. � Kulti on 23.12.2010 at about 0900 hrs unauthorisedly and he knocked at the door forcibly. Subsequently, he used filthy language at her and also created nuisance there. At about 2115 hrs, he had been brought to the Unit line by BHM and other from Niyamatpur Police Investigation Centre. Such type of act committed by the said individual has been tarnished the image of the disciplined Force in the eye of public. The above act on the part of No. 071023843 Constable Mukesh Kumar Tiwary tantamount gross misconduct, breach of discipline and unbecoming of a member of disciplined Force, like CISF. On 01.09.2010, No. 071023843 Constable Mukesh Kumar Tiwary of CISF Unit ECL Seetalpur (STP HQs) snatched away the Mobile Phone from Smt. Mousumi Sarkar, teacher of Sitarampur Harihar Girls ' School at Asansol Bus Stand as written complaint dated 21.12.2010 made by her husband, Shri Santosh Sarkar, Asstt. Teacher, Ushagram Boys ' High School, Asansol. Constable Mukesh Kumar Tiwary also afflicted and harassed Smt. Mousumi Sarkar frequently on the way of her school and her parents ' house at Bishnubihar Colony, Niyamatput. Moreover, he entered into her parents ' house forcibly and created nuisance there. Besides these, he has given life threat regularly to her and her husband over mobile phone.
(3.) THE above act on the part of No. 071023843 Constable Mukesh Kumar Tiwary amounts to gross misconduct, breach of discipline and unbecoming of a member of disciplined Force, like CISF. The petitioner gave reply to the said authority on 14.01.2011 denying the said charges and claiming himself to be innocent. By letter dated 20.12.2011 the Enquiry Officer being respondent no. 6 herein forwarded the brief of the presenting officer to the petitioner and called upon him to submit his defense. The petitioner by letter dated 22.12.2011 submitted his defense to the said brief denying the allegations contained therein. With regard to charge no. 1, he submitted that on 23.12.2010 he went in the morning to the unit to draw rifle but was engaged by his superiors to do other work and, as a result, he could not attend the inspection parade. He further claimed he had left the post by signing the out post register on 23.12.2010 for medically treatment. With regard to charge no. 2, he denied the same and claimed in his submission that the same did not relate to the discharge of his duties. In the course of enquiry seven witnesses were examined and a number of documents were exhibited. The petitioner however did not examine any witness in support of his defense. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 04.03.2011 holding that both the charges were proved.;