Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THIS writ application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging a disciplinary proceeding including the charge -sheet dated 31st December, 2009 issued by the respondent No. 5, the enquiry report communicated vide memorandum dated 12th May, 2010, the order of the disciplinary authority dated 17th June, 2010, the order of the appellate authority dated 30th September, 2010 and the order of the revisional authority dated 31st July, 2011.
(2.) THE facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was an employee of Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the C.I.S.F.) and when he was posted as a Constable at Haldia, he was served a charge -sheet dated 21st December, 2009 issued by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner thereafter participated in the enquiry in which five members of a surprise check team deposed on behalf of C.I.S.F. along with one Mr. K.K. Ghosh, Coy Commander. In the midst of such enquiry, the petitioner was supplied a copy of the presenting officer's brief vide memorandum dated 28th April, 2010 and subsequent thereto the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner by a memorandum dated 12th May, 2010. The petitioner replied to the said enquiry report on 28th May, 2010 and subsequent thereto the petitioner was communicated the order of the disciplinary authority vide memorandum dated 17th June, 2010 imposing a punishment of removal from service upon. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal but by an order dated 30th September, 2010 the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the revisional authority by a petition dated 24th November, 2010 and upon consideration of the same the petitioner's punishment was modified to compulsory retirement from service with 90% pensionary benefits from the date of removal from service. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority has passed the order of removal from service only on the basis of a suspicion to the effect that as an amount of Rs. 2,375/ - was confiscated by the surprise check team from the jurisdiction of duty area of the petitioner and during his duty hours, the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty which tantamounts to illegal collection of money for wrongful gain.
(3.) HE further submits that in course of enquiry the petitioner wanted to examine the other Constables present on the date of the incident but such prayer was turned down by the enquiry officer on a purported plea that the said Constables are also being dealt with departmentally on identical set of charge and that the said Constables are biased against the employer (page 80 of WP). According to Mr. Bhattacharyya such denial of opportunity to the petitioner to produce the Constables as defence witnesses tantamounts to blatant violation of principles of natural justice.;