TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS writ application had been preferred challenging the charge sheet dated 7th February, 2006 issued by the respondent no.4, the enquiry report dated 17th April, 2006 issued by the respondent no.5, the order of punishment dated 25th May, 2006 issued by the respondent no.4 and the order dated 28th December, 2006 passed by the Appellate Authority being the respondent no.3.
(2.) THE facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was served a charge sheet dated 17th February, 2006 issued by the respondent no.4 alleging inter alia that he had failed to prevent and detect the theft of 47 numbers of steel crossing sleepers from the station limit at Kunuri railway station during his camping duty period and that he had failed to inform the matter to his Controlling Authorities. On the basis of the charge sheet, an enquiry was conducted and a report to that effect was filed by the respondent no.5 on 25th May, 2006 and that without considering the representation made by the petitioner against the enquiry report, the respondent no.4 passed an order of punishment on 25th May, 2006 imposing a punishment of reduction to the last stage in existing scale of pay for 3 years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment the petitioner filed a statutory appeal and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 28th December, 2006. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in the charge sheet itself the name of the Enquiry Officer was incorporated who directly proceeded with the enquiry and the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to submit his reply to the said charge sheet and that such action constitutes blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of such submission, Mr. Majumder had also placed reliance upon the railway board's circular dated 31st January, 2003.
(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Majumder, the enquiry had been conducted in a slip shod manner and the report had been filed on 17th April, 2006 without considering the deposition of the witnesses and that the enquiry report was absolutely perverse.;