- (1.) The petitioner was working as constable in Central Industrial Security Force (in short "C.I.S.F."). The petitioner was on duty in 'C Shift in C.I.S.F. Unit of Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi on 7.9.1998 from 2100 hours to 0500 hours on 8.9.1998. During his duty hours, one miscreant entered the shop and collected "Brass Chips" and while carrying the bags containing the brass chips noticed by other CISF Jawans. He was chased, however, taking benefit of darkness, he vanished from the spot, leaving behind the bag containing stolen 'Brass Chips'. The petitioner was directed by the Assistant Commandant of the CISF to attend orderly room at 3.30 p.m. on 8.9.1998 itself. However, the petitioner did not report to the Assistant Commandant. Thereafter the petitioner was charged on two counts, which are quoted below. Article of Charge-1: No. 802230188 Constable B.N. Sharma of FFP Coy, CISF Unit, HEC, Ranchi while posted in HMBP 'D' Coy was detailed in 'C Shift from 2100 hrs. to 0500 hrs. on date 7.9.1998 at 020 Shop and CPL. On date 8.9.1998 at about 3.20 hrs. some miscreants try to' steal three gunny bags of brass chips approximate weight is 248.500 Kgs. and the cost is Rs. 19,880/- due to his carelessness. By this act, he shows misconduct, disobedience and dereliction of duty. Hence the charge. Article of Charge-II: No. 802230188 Constable B.N. Sharma of FFP Coy of CISF Unit, HEC, Ranchi while posted in HMBP 'D' Coy was detailed at 020 Shop of HMBP on date 7/8.9.1998 and at about 0320 hrs. a theft was occurred during his duty hours. In this connection, the Asstt. Commandant of HMBP ordered him to appear In orderly room on 8.9.1998 at 1530 hrs. But, the member of the Force did not appear in orderly room without prior information and permission. This act by the member of the Force shows misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience. Hence the charge. The" enquiry officer vide his enquiry report dated 26.4.1999 has found both the charges proved against the petitioner. The enquiry report was served on the petitioner and his explanation was called. Having considered his explanation, the competent authority has passed by the impugned order dated 31.7.1999 removing the petitioner from service.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed statutory appeal which too, was dismissed vide order dated 4.12.1999. Further feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was an attempt to theft. However, in time, action of theft was detected and nothing could be stolen from the site under the patrolling duty of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held negligent while on duty, hence charge No. 1 is not proved. He has further argued that the petitioner has reported late on 8.9.1998 itself to the office of the Assistant Commandant, therefore, punishment of removal for reporting late seems to be shocking and lesser punishment could have been awarded to the petitioner.;