Debasish Kar Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner files this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order of dismissal dated May 31, 1960 as also the order dated January 6, 1997 passed by the appellate authority.
(2.) The fact of the case is this the petitioner while working as a constable in the Unit of Central Industrial Security Force, Doyang Hydro Electrical Project at Nagaland, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from August 20, 1995 in contemplation of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him. As per order dated December 4, 1995 the above order of suspension was revoked. Consequently a charge sheet dated April 15, 1996 was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated May 16, 1996 to the above charge-sheet. Thereafter the enquiry proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated May 31, 1996 against the petitioner dismissing him from the service in exercise of Rule 29(A) read with schedule 11 of CISF Rule 1969. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the order of dismissal. As per order dated January, 1997 the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Hence this writ application.
(3.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner Shri A.K. Sanyal, Learned Advocate submits that in the disciplinary proceeding under challenge, three charges were levelled against the petitioner those are as follows : (i) The petitioner was absent from the place of his duty from 2300 hrs on August 19, 1995 to 0130 hrs on August 20, 1995 while he was on duty at Jolly Power House out post (Water Conducted Site) (ii) The petitioner abused Naik S.P. Sharma enquired about his liming the place during duty hours without permission. (iii) On August 20, 1995 at about 0600 hrs the petitioner was found flatly sleeping on a table in the office of M/s Jolly Construction keeping his Rifle with him. (iv) On August 20, 1995 at about 0600 hrs the petitioner was found flatly sleeping on a table in the officer of M/s Jolly Construction keeping his Rifle with him. Mr. Sanyal submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved during enquiry because there was no entry in the beat book in support the allegation of absence from the place of duty during the duty hours. Naik S.P. Sharma did not report anything about the absence of the petitioner from the place of his duty to the control room. Therefore, it was an after thought. The next submission of Mr. Sanyal is this the finding of the enquiry officer was contrary to the evidences. According to Mr. Sanyal the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint lodged by Naik S.P. Sharma. But it would be evidence from the reply to the charge sheet dated May 16, 1996 that the aforesaid Naik Sri S.P. Sharma had taken a loan of Rs. 500/- from the petitioner in the year 1995. It was not repaid fully to him. When the petitioner asked the aforesaid Sri S.P. Sharma to refund the money back to him he (Naik Sri S.P. Sharma) lodged the aforesaid baseless complaint against the petitioner. Mr. Sanyal further submits that the evidences of the aforesaid Naik Sri S.P. Sharma was not corroborated by the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses. So the impugned order of dismissal as also the order passed by the appellate authority are liable to be set aside. The second limb of submission of Mr. Sanyal is this the punishment imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.;