Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) The appellant was appointed in Central Industrial Security Force (for short "the CISF") and was posted at the CISF unit Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation Limited at the material point of time.
(2.) The facts, according to the appellant, are that on 4th August, 1998 at about 3.45 p.m. while he was asleep in his quarters he was awakened by a scream. He got up, went out and saw that Leela Devi, the wife of head constable Saraju Singh was quarrelling with his wife and both of them were engaged in a scuffle. The appellant rushed, intervened and with great difficulty managed to separate them. In the process he suffered injury to the forth finger of his right hand. According to him, Leela Devi had bitten him in that finger. He came to learn that at the school his daughter had a quarrel with the daughter of Leela Devi. Pursuant to that she had come to his quarters to have the matter settled with his wife. According to the appellant, he reported the matter to one inspector Mishra who instead of taking any action informed Saraju Singh. The said inspector took Leela Devi to the hospital and he himself wrote a complaint. The said inspector misusing his official positions sent a vehicle for taking the said Saraju Singh to the new township for registering a case at the new township police station against the appellant.
(3.) The said inspector on 4th August, 1998 submitted a special report to the Deputy Commandant. The said Deputy Commandant directed the said inspector to conduct a preliminary enquiry and to submit a report on 6th August, 1998. On 4th August, 1998, on the basis of the report the appellant was suspended by the Deputy Commandant. Thereafter, on 10th September, 1998 under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1968 a memorandum of charges was issued to the appellant. A written reply dated 9th October, 1998 was submitted denying the allegations, contained in the said memorandum of charges. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer-was appointed. It has been alleged that the said Enquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to submit written arguments and without such written arguments the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved which were contrary to the evidence available. The appellant on 21st April, 1999 pointing out the infirmities, submitted a representation against the report of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, on 29th April, 1999 the appellant herein was dismissed from service.;