D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER , in this writ application, has prayed for an order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated -26.06.2007 (Annexure -5) whereby the petitioner has been punished by way of his compulsory retirement from service. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order of the appellate authority dated -03.09.2007 (Annexure -7), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of his compulsory retirement, has been dismissed. Challenge also has been made to the order dated -16.08.2007 (Annexure -8), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 21,000/ - in place of Rs. 18,029/ - by means of Bank Draft towards the compensation for the loss of Arms and ammunition, which has occurred on account of the alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was a Sub -Inspector under the C.I.S.F. and was posted in the C.I.S.F. Unit, BRBNML at Salboni, West Bengal. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of charge of misconduct, namely, that he was found negligent in performance of his duties and because of such negligence, there was theft of Arms and ammunition including the service pistol, which was entrusted to him. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, passed the impugned order of punishment for the petitioner's compulsory retirement. A further order was passed subsequently vide the impugned order (Annexure -8), calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount specified, by way of compensation for the loss of the Arms and ammunition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders both of the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and the defence of the petitioner, in proper perspective and without even considering the fact that taking the evidences as they appear on record, the punishment is highly disproportionate to the charge. Learned Counsel explains that the petitioner had adequately explained the circumstances in which the Arms and ammunition were stolen and had also stated that he had lodged a prompt F.I.R. regarding the theft of Arms and ammunition but this aspect of the petitioner's defence has not been appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority. It is further contended that the order directing the petitioner to deposit the amount by way of compensating for the loss of Arms and ammunition, amounts to double punishment and double jeopardy, which the Respondents cannot impose.;