Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereafter the CISF). A memorandum of charge-sheet dated 7th May, 1993 was issued by the Commandant, Farakka Barrage Project, CISF Unit whereby the petitioner was conveyed of the proposal of holding of an enquiry into his conduct under Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereafter the Rules).
(2.) Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the petitioner was charged under three heads. First, the petitioner was accused of failing to attend regimental duties like parade on the 8 (eight) dates mentioned therein without any information to or prior permission from the competent authority, which exhibited an act of gross indiscipline unbecoming of a member of the force. Secondly, the petitioner was accused of failure to attend the orderly room of the assistant commandant on the 5 (five) dates mentioned therein in spite of orders passed in the evening roll call, thereby exhibiting an act of misconduct in violation of discipline of the force. Thirdly, the petitioner was accused of sleeping inside a launch cabin at the time of checking thereof by the duty officer at about 01.15 hours on 21st January, 1993 and then again on 13th March, 1993 at about 02.10 hours, which amounted to gross negligence of duty. The charge-sheet was accompanied by the list of documents and the list of witnesses by which/whom the articles of charge framed against the petitioner were proposed to be substantiated.
(3.) Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner simply denied and disputed the same resulting in a departmental enquiry being conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report dated 26th February, 1994 holding that all three charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. The report of enquiry was served upon the petitioner by a covering letter dated 15th March, 1994 of the commandant giving an opportunity to make representation there- against. A written statement of defence was submitted by the petitioner, which was considered by the commandant who proceeded to pass a final order of punishment dated 6th August, 1994 removing the petitioner from service. However, in view of a subsisting order of injunction passed in an earlier writ petition of the petitioner, such order of removal could not immediately be given effect. The said writ petition was, however, disposed of on 29th March, 1995 by a learned Judge of this Court granting liberty to the respondents in the writ petition to pass and serve the final order of punishment on the petitioner. Consequently, a fresh final order dated 5th April, 1995 was passed and served on the petitioner, in pursuance whereof the petitioner stood removed from service.;