Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) THE order under challenge in the present writ petition was passed by the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (R.P.F., in short) on revision from an order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. By the order impugned the revisional application was also rejected. For the present, it is not necessary to go into the details of the case. Suffice, however, it to say that the petitioner while working as a Constable in the R.P.F. was initially charged with certain offences in the year 1989 and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He was found guilty and an order of dismissal was passed against him.
(2.) THE petitioner challenged the same by a writ petition. By an order dated July 19, 2001 a learned Single Judge of this Court found that the statutory rules had not been complied with and the principles of natural justice have been violated. The entire proceeding after the issue of charge -sheet was set aside.
(3.) HOWEVER , the R.P.F. authorities decided to proceed against the petitioner de novo on the basis of the charge -sheet and a fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. In that proceeding the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and the enquiry officer after considering the evidence on record had very specifically found that the charge against the petitioner had not been proved and exonerated him of the charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and imposed the penalty of withholding his increments for a period of five years with cumulative effect. As mentioned earlier the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner thereafter had been rejected.;