Samapti Chatterjee, J. - (1.) Assailing the impugned order dated 11th July, 2007 passed by the respondent no.2 thereby holding the order passed suomoto in review proceedings by the respondent no.3 on 20th February, 2007 thereby enhancing the punishment of removal from the service, though the initial punishment was deduction of pay scale ordered by the respondent no.4 on 10th November, 2006.
(2.) Petitioner's case in a nutshell is as follows:- That the petitioner joined as a Constable on 13th March, 1993 having Constable No.932332578 at Bhilai Steel Plant under the Central Industrial Security Service, Ministry of Home Affairs. Petitioner has to perform administrative duty under the supervision of the D. Company in Durgapur. On 27th May, 2005 the Commandant CISF Unit DSP Durgaur issued an order that G.D. Staff deployed in offices will wear uniform daily in the morning and P.T. dress in the afternoon. The petitioner was bewildered after receiving a letter on 18th August, 2005 to explain before the respondent authority that on 10th June, 2005 a private dumper bearing No.WB-39/1391 was reportedly loaded with nut-coke of the RMHP nut-coke, western side of DSP (D) by one Sr. R.S. Prasad Pay leader operation unauthorisedly and it passed through Gate No.2A with nut-coke without any check by CISF personnel. The incident of loading of nutcoke and passing through Gate No.2A had happened between 17:20 hours to 17:55 hours on that date. From preliminary enquiry it was found that the petitioner was seen in Gate No.2A in yellow T. shirt and gave signal to allow the dumper to go inside. On 7th November, 2005 the petitioner was supplied with the memorandum containing alleged charges against the petitioner. Against that memorandum the petitioner gave written reply on 18th November, 2005. On 10th May, 2006 the Enquiry Officer gave notice to the petitioner that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was asked to produce witnesses in his defence. Thereafter on 19th May, 2006 the name of the prosecution witnesses were furnished to the petitioner. In the preliminary hearing on 19th May, 2006 the petitioner made a prayer to produce the following defence witnesses:- (1) A.K. Arya, Company Commander, D. Company, (2) G.C. Adhikary, Crime I/C., (3) S.P. Ghosh CHM, D. Company. It is stated that petitioner also by a letter dated 29th May, 2006 asked for production of further defence witnesses. Petitioner further prayed that Sri. A.K. Arya Imp/Ev as witness because he was the Company Commander of the petitioner at that relevant point of time who can ascertain that where the petitioner was discharging his duty at that relevant point of time. The petitioner also sought for G.C. Adhikary, Crime/IC as defence witness because he was incharge of entire plant of DSP Durgapur who can enlighten where the petitioner was present at the relevant time. Petitioner also prayed for the some officers of the respondent authority to appear as defence witnesses. He also prayed for furnishing of some important document pertinent to that particular incident. Thereafter on 18th August, 2006 the petitioner was supplied with the brief note of the said case and the petitioner on 23rd August, 2006 gave written statement against the brief notice. On 7th September, 2006 the finding of Enquiry Officer was also furnished to the petitioner and thereafter on 12th September, 2006 the petitioner gave his written submission against such findings. After that on 10th December, 2006 the order of punishment was passed by the respondent no.4 the Group Commandant, C.I.S.F Group H/Q R.S. Kolkata thereby reducing the pay and cancellation of increment of the petitioner. Challenging the same the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and that appeal was returned by the appellate authority and suomoto revision order was passed by the said authority thereby enhancing the punishment from reduction of pay scale to the ultimate punishment of dismissal. Against that the petitioner also preferred appeal before the respondent no.2, the Inspector General / NES and the respondent no.2 affirmed the order of dismissal passed by the respondent no.3, Deputy Inspector General/ NEZ.
(3.) Mr. Madhusudan Saha Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority without assigning any reason returned the appeal and thereafter the respondent no.3 suomoto made revision of the said order thereby enhancing the punishment to the extreme one, i.e. dismissal.;