Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J. - (1.) In this writ application, the petitioner have challenged the entire departmental proceeding including the order of the appellate authority and the show-cause notice issued by the Director General, Railway Protection Force dated 1st March, 1984 by which the said authority intended to review the order passed by the appellate authority and to enhance the punishment already awarded on him under rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules. Sri J. S Chhatre, Security Officer, Eastern Railway, Asansol, issued the said charge sheet against the petitioner for gross neglect of duty and misconduct. The text of the said charge sheet issued against the petitioner are as follows:- "Shri G. C. Das, lPF/Asansol Dh. Post while holding the charge of Dh Post Asansol miserably failed to control the crimes securing within his post during the month of January 1978. In both the 2 cases of V. T. and 2 cases of pilferage oi which one was a special report case - he failed to take proper action either for recovering the property or for arresting the criminals as also in fixing up staff responsibility. In those cases, he remained completely mum and did not rice to the occasion as an Inspector-in-charge and did not of a post should leave. In another incident of 30.1.78 in connection with theft of motor offer. he remained practically silent and did not take any effective action Besides, some more information of serious nature also came to the notice which goes to prove his incapability in running a post. All these clearly indicate that either he was out to suppress facts going on in his post or allowing the crimes to be committed with some ulterior motive "
(2.) On the basis of the said charge sheet an enquiry was held by Sri S. S. Upadhavay, Assistant Security Officer, who was appointed as an Enquiring Officer. From the report of the Enquiring officer it is found that in order to prove the charges against the petitioner Sri J. S. Chhatre appeared as a prosecution witness and deposed in the said enquiry. The. Enquiring Officer who held the enquiry had abruptly closed the enquiry immediately after the prosecution witnesses were examined. The Enquiring offer stated in the enquiry report that out or sixty four dates fixed for hearing, the petitioner only appeared on thirteen occasions and the petitioner was very reluctant in his appearance and in order to coerce the petitioner to attend the said enquiry he had to follow this procedure in closing the enquiry and concluded the enquiry ex parte. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner attended the enquiry and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in attending the enquiry. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition the petitioner have disclosed in detail the dates of the hearing and why the enquiry could not be concluded. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner attended the enquiry but the hearing was not held on some plea or other on those particular dates. The petitioner also denied categorically that there was no laches and/or negligence on the part of the petitioner for attending the said enquiry and the course of action that was adopted by the enquiry. Enquiring officer resulted substantial failure of justice inasmuch as the petitioner could not be able to represent his case and could not submit written statement in support of his defence. This factual aspect of the matter has not been denied by the respondents by filling affidavit-in opposition as nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Enquiring officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and thereafter, by an order dated 22nd April, 1983 the disciplinary authority, viz., the Chief Security Offer, Railway Protection Force issued a second show-cause notice against the petitioner. The text of the said second show-cause notice are as follows:- "Whereas the charges framed under Rule 44(2) of the Railway Protection Force Rules. 1959. against Shri G. C. Das, IPF/C&TE/BWN have been proved as per findings of the inquiry conducted by Sri S.S. Upadhayay, ASO/DHN (now retired as Enquiry Officer, it is proposed to impose on him the penalty of reduction in rank from Inspector to Sub-Inspector for 2 years with cumulative effect as specified in Clause 41(d) of RPF Rules, lace. However, before final orders are passed in this regard, a copy of the report of the inquiry together with findings is furnished to Shri G.C. Das and he is called upon to submit within period of seven days such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action. If his representation is not received within the time specified, final orders in the case will be passed.
(3.) The petitioner submitted reply to the said second show-cause notice and the disciplinary authority on consideration of the said reply to the show-cause notice passed the following order on 10/17th May, 1983 : "I have decided that you are responsible in the above case and have passed the following orders. that you are reverted from the rank of inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector in scale Rs. 330 - 560/- for two years with cumulative effect. This order will take effect from 18.5.1983.";