NISHA GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.5.2000 of learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1705/1990, whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) THE short facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Rakshak, Railway Protection Force at Ajmer and at the relevant time was posted at Marwar Junction. He was served with a charge sheet and memorandum dated 12.1.1984 on the allegation that he allowed Rakshak Kanwarpal of Marwar Junction to hide an iron door of brake van in his railway quarter which was removed by Kanwarpal from brake van no.9306 attached to goods train standing on lane no.1 of Marwar Junction Yard. Further, the present appellant misappropriated the said iron door in collusion with Kanwarpal Rakshak and thus violated Rule 1(i) (iii) of the Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1996 and the chargesheet was served under rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. The appellant denied the allegations made against him and asked for the relevant documents. Appellant was removed from service and his departmental appeal and the writ petition against it was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. The contention of the present appellant is that the principles of natural justice were not followed in conducting inquiry. He was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. The findings of inquiry officer are perverse. Testimony of witnesses Nathuram and Meghraj who were alleged to be eye witnesses of the incident have not supported the case of the Department and declared hostile, hence the order of removal is bad in law.
(3.) PER contra, the contention of the respondents is that fair inquiry has been conducted. The present appellant has been given full opportunity of hearing. The findings could not be termed as perverse as Bhagchand and Gokul Chand have testified the incident. FIR was lodged by Narendranath. The competent authorities have passed the appropriate order keeping in view the magnitude and gravity of the misconduct. Their further contention is that in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1331/1997 filed by Kanwarpal, co-ordinate bench has considered the matter and order of removal has been substituted with penalty of compulsory retirement.;