TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is an order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 1390 of 1999.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that while working in the post of a Head Constable under the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as RPF), the writ petitioner/appellant herein was issued a major penalty charge sheet on 29th November, 1996. On 21st December, 1996 the appellant was arrested by police for his direct involvement in murder of a Constable, namely, C.B. Singh and a case was registered against him being Case No.203/96 dated 21st December, 1996 under Section 302 / 307 / 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter the appellant was placed under suspension on 24th December, 1996 and was dismissed from his service in application of the provisions of Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules of 1987). Challenging the same a writ petition being WP 2096 of 1997 was preferred and pursuant to the direction of the Court the appellant was reinstated in service. After such reinstatement the authorities proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding pertaining to the charge sheet dated 29th November, 1996. The enquiry officer despatched a number of letters to the appellant to attend the enquiry but the appellant chose not to contest the same. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was also sent to the appellant. The appellant did not reply to the same and ultimately the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from service on 31st March, 1999. Challenging the said disciplinary proceeding and the final order passed in the same, the appellant preferred the writ petition being WP 1309 of 1999. The said writ petition was heard upon exchange of affidavits and dismissed by the order impugned in the instant appeal.
(3.) Ms. Bharati Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was not issued proper notices to contest the proceedings. The respondents also did not consider the representation dated 11th December, 1996 made by the appellant for change of the enquiry officer. The enquiry report was also not served upon the appellant and from such facts it is explicit that the proceedings were conducted in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.;