UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. SRI. DESHRAJ
LAWS(CAL)-1996-6-34
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 10,1996

Union of India and Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Sri. Deshraj Respondents




JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 1.3.91 passed by Mohitosh Majumdar. J in CO. No. 12335(W) of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge set aside the order of punishment of the disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellate authority. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 admittedly is a member of the Central Industrial Security Force. A charge -sheet was issued against him on or about 15.10.86 which is to the following effect :
Article -I.

On 13 -9 -86. No. 830114 Constable Desh Raj of 'H' Coy was detailed for 'C' Shift duty from 2200 hrs to 0600 hrs at Sec. Mill area for guarding the DSP properties but he failed to do so. In that during his duty hours at about 0145 hrs criminals came to that area and stolen 2 pieces of spinal brass sleeper and tried to take those materials through under ground drain in his presence.

Article -II;

No. 8301114 Constable Desh Raj while deployed in night shift duty on 13.9.86 at Sec. Mill area for guarding the Government property against theft/pilferage/damage etc but he failed to do so. During the period at about 0145 hrs 4 criminals came to that area and tried to take 2 pieces of spinal brass sleeper through the man hole of the under ground drain leaving to the outside the plant. Constable Desh Raj remained present in a bush near the man hole and gave signal to the criminals by the help of lathi to go away when crime people namely HC P.S. Rana, NK M.L. Singh, Const. J. Abedin and Constable Phool Singh reached at the site of occurrence. In the meantime criminal fled away but -materials were recovered by the crime people. Const. Desh Raj did not take any initiative to apprehend the criminals though he was present 5 to 6 meter away from the criminals.

The petitioner denied and disputed the allegations made against him. An enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer was changed from time to time. The enquiry proceeding later on was commenced. A report was submitted.

(2.)It appears that upon submission of the report by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority had himself agent to the place of occurrence with eye witness and prepared a report wherein he observed as follows :
I personally visited the place on the very next morning with the PWs who showed the place from where Const. Desh "Raj gave the signal. He was hiding in a bush just at the corner of the Time Office, and helping the criminals. I am well convinced that the Const. Desh Raj not only failed to guard the DSP properties from his area but also helped the criminals to steal and escape from the hand of the Crime personnel. So in my opinion this type of the personnel is not at all required in the Force who will spoil the prestige and morals of the Force.

(3.)The learned Judge in view of the aforementioned part came to the conclusion that the order of the disciplinary authority suffers from technical bias.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.