TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Jai Prakash Pandey and Mr. M.M. Prasad learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner, in the instant case, has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.3.1993 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone, by reason whereof the appeal filed by the petitioner against his order of dismissal from service has been rejected. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments has submitted that consequently the dismissal of the petitioner be also set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. On 6.4.1992, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges informing him that the Commandant/CISF Group Headquarters -cum -Disciplinary Authority, proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969. The imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour in respect of which the enquiry was proposed to be held, was enclosed in the articles of charges appended to the aforementioned memorandum. According to the statement of articles of charges, it is apparent that the petitioner was sought to be proceeded against the following charges : - - (A) On 11/12.2.1992, the petitioner had been assigned C shift duty from 9.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. (2100 Hrs. to 500 Hrs.) at Watch Tower No. III of B Plant. He was found sitting and dozing in front of a small fire which amounted to neglect of duty within the meaning of Section 18 of the C.I.S.F. Act, 1968. (B) At about 12.20 a.m. (00.20 hours) the petitioner assaulted Inspec - tor/Exe. T. Chakraborty who had found him sitting and dozing while on duty which amounted to misconduct within the meaning of Section 18 of the C.I.S.F. Act, 1968.
(3.) IN the statements of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour, in support of the aforementioned articles of charges, it was further mentioned and it was stated that the petitioner was sitting and dozing in the manner stated above keeping a tin sheet (1 x 4) on the left side (Western Side) which obstructed the vision of on -duty, constable who found the perimeter wall/ fencing towards the Western Side checked by Inspector/Exe. T. Chakraborty. When questioned by the said Inspector T. Chakraborty, the petitioner became angry and took out his short "lathi" and assaulted him, as a result whereof, the latter sustained injury, which was again, said to be misconduct within the meaning of Section 18 of the C.I.S.F. Act, 1968.;