- (1.) IT is recorded that despite direction and service of this application and recording appearance on behalf of the State at earlier point of time and despite further direction being given neither affidavit-in-opposition has been filed nor any one comes to oppose this application on behalf of the State.
(2.) THIS application has impugned the order of the learned Tribunal which has upheld the order of dismissal of the applicant from service short fact, leading to filing of this case, is stated hereunder:-The applicant, at the relevant point of time, was a Sub-Inspector of Police and acting as Officer-in-Charge at Alipurduar, Government railway Police Station. In course of his duty, on or about 24th of January, 2003, he was charge-sheeted with the following charges: " (i) "while the applicant was attached to Alipurduar in GRPS as o. C. of Alipurduar GRPS on 20. 12. 02 at 20. 00 hrs. one Head Constable atul Chandra Barman informed S. I. Monojit Sarkar at the said GRPS regarding arrest and custody of one person caught with ganja and four other persons for ticketless travel in the Railway compartment and as those five persons were arrested but the applicant released three persons from the GRPS including person charged carrying with ganja and remaining two persons namely - (1) Monindra Nath Debnath and (2) Kalapahar Debnath of Assam-were taken into custody and started grps Case No. 16/02 dated 2p. 12. 02 under Section 20 (b) NDPS Act read with Section 137 of the Indian Railways Act against them on the basis of complaint of the said HC/atui Chandra Barman showing seizure of the ganja from their possession; (ii) The applicant let off three other accused persons without observing any formality, as required by law which indicate mala fide action of the applicant; and (iii) The applicant briefed the said H/c Atul Chandra Barman and constable-Bhabesh Roy to make false statements to the superiors regarding the number of persons arrested from Dn. B. P. Mail on the charge of carrying ganja to match concoction made in the FIR". "
(3.) THE applicant duly replied to the said Memorandum of Charges denying all the allegations. So enquiry followed by appointment of an Enquiry officer. It is an admitted position that the applicant participated in the proceedings, held by the Enquiry Officer, and adduced evidence. Similarly, evidence, both oral and documentary, was adduced on behalf of the department concerned also. Enquiry Officer, after analyzing the evidence adduced before him, has found him guilty of all the charges. The disciplinary authority, namely, superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Siliguri accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and having concurred with the findings, issued show-cause notice to the applicant asking as to why he should not be dismissed from service. At this stage the applicant approached the learned tribunal with the relief for quashing the first charge-sheet, enquiry report as well as the second show-cause notice.;