- (1.) Two counts of charge have been held to be proved against the petitioner. Mrs. Sengupta, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submitted article of charge no.I was held to have been proved against her client in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as a vital document being the preliminary enquiry report was not made available to him as would appear from the enquiry report itself. She further submitted without prejudice to her first contention, the finding on the second charge as held to have been proved in the enquiry report is perverse and not supported by the materials that were considered in the enquiry.
(2.) She still further submitted the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and thereafter the revisional authority had merely reproduced the enquiry officer's findings and confirmed the same.
(3.) Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted the disciplinary proceeding was held in compliance with all provisions of law and on observing the principles of natural justice. The incident took place at around 8.45 p.m. on 7th May, 2004 but the petitioner being the company commander who was entirely responsible and solely in charge of the company manning the gate, failed to supervise the movement of the truck and trailor. The incident remained undetected by him and it was reported or came to the knowledge of the authorities otherwise on 18th May, 2004. He submitted minor punishment was awarded after investigation and giving the petitioner full opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner had exhausted the statutory remedies available and all orders passed in the matter were with reasons, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances brought out in the enquiry.;