Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the second show-cause notice issued to him.
(2.) The case of the petitioner in short is that he is a Head Constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF, for short) of South Eastern Railway. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him by issuing a charge-sheet, dated October 19, 2016 framed by the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF whereby it was alleged that an excess amount of Rs. 220/- was recovered by the investigating team over and above the declared amount of Rs. 85/-. He alleges that the said charge-sheet was not framed in accordance with Rule 153.3.3 of the RPF Rules as the disciplinary authority did not record any reason whether it was a case for a major or a minor punishment. On the contrary, the authority issued a charge-sheet for a major penalty which was not only contrary to the relevant provision of law but disclosed a biased mind of the disciplinary authority.
(3.) It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the disciplinary authority at the time of framing the charge-sheet appointed the enquiry officer and fixed the date of enquiry with the stipulation that if the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry proceeding the enquiry would be conducted ex parte without giving him any opportunity to give reply to the ex parte.;