SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the memorandum of charges dated 11th September, 2008 enquiry report dated 1st January, 2009, final order of the disciplinary authority dated 5th March, 2009 as well as order of the appellate authority dated 30th April, 2009.
(2.) The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is as follows :- That the petitioner on 10th June, 2006 joined in service as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Force'). Subsequently the petitioner was assigned Internal Security Duty (I.S. Duty) in Arunachal Pradesh on 22nd February, 2008. All on a sudden on 11th September, 2008 petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges interalia with the following Article of charge :- "While the petitioner was on duty on 12.5.2008 from 9.00 hrs. to 13.00 hrs. he consumed liquor at about 12.20 hrs. on 12.05.2008 with 4 other members of the Force and created nuisance and threatened to shoot the sub-Officers' and as such he along with others were taken by the local police personnel and after their medical check up was set at free." Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his statement of defence denying all the allegations and also mentioning that several important/relevant documents have not been enclosed with the said memorandum of charge. As a result whereof the petitioner prayed for providing him those important documents. Thereafter on 1st January, 2009 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report thereby establishing the guilt of the petitioner. Against such enquiry report the petitioner submitted his written representation sometime in January, 2009. The disciplinary authority thereafter on the basis of the purported enquiry report on 5th March, 2009 passed its final order thereby imposing harsh punishment like removal from the service. Against the said final order of the disciplinary authority the petitioner preferred an appeal on 22nd March, 2009 before the Appellate authority. The appellate authority on 30th April, 2009 rejected the petitioner's appeal thereby affirming the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. Submissions of the Learned Advocates
(3.) Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the disciplinary authority subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority are wholly erroneous, illegal and suffers from lack of procedural mistakes.;