Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.04.2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4860 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application of the respondent/petitioner.
(2.) IN the aforesaid writ application the respondent/petitioner stated that he was posted as Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, DSP, Durgapur and on 10.06.2005 theft of nut coke by a dumper took place; that on receiving the information from the General Manager (Service) the respondent/petitioner directed Sri K.K. Singh, the Commandant to apprehend the driver and his accomplices; that Sri K.K. Singh immediately rushed and saw the said dumper and on checking the dumper, found to be empty and brought the dumper alongwith the driver, Sheikh Mustaza, to the CISF complex and information of the same was sent to the General Manager who, alongwith other officials came to CISF complex of Durgapur Steel Plant in the meantime, the police of Durgapur Police Station also arrived and the driver was interrogated and the dumper and driver was handed over to the police on 10.06.2005; that the written complaint was sent to the petitioner after endorsement by the petitioner and on the basis of the complaint an F.I.R. was drawn. On the direction of the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by P.K. Basu, Asstt Commandant; that the petitioner had also suspended 6 CISF personnel and he had sent the incident report to the Force Headquarters on 11.06.2005 and a second report on 12.06.2005 vide message Nos. 547, 550 and 551 respectively; that the petitioner was transferred on 14.06.2005 to Force Headquarters, New Delhi and he relinquished his charge on 16.06.2005; by that time Sri P.K. Basu had not submitted the preliminary enquiry report that since the petitioner had relinquished his charge, he could not submit any further report. It is alleged that appellant/respondent No. 6 conducted a second preliminary enquiry and the respondent/petitioner was not examined in the second preliminary enquiry; that there was no occasion for setting up a second preliminary enquiry as the respondent/petitioner had already ordered for a preliminary enquiry. It is alleged that appellant/respondent No. 6 was biased as the respondent/petitioner had filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1504/2003 before Calcutta High Court whereafter the promotion of appellant/respondent No. 6 was made conditional subject to the final result of the writ petition. That the appellant/respondent No. 6 motivatedly conducted the second preliminary enquiry to falsely implicate the petitioner/respondent. That thereafter charge memorandum dated 13.01.2006 was served with allegation that petitioner/respondent did not lodge any F.I.R. despite the written complaint given by the management officials on 10.06.2005, consequently, he failed to discharge his supervisory role having been entrusted with security of the entire plant and did not maintain devotion towards his duty which was unbecoming of an officer of his rank. The second charge was that the petitioner/respondent failed to maintain proper command and control over his staff and personnel posted at Gate No. 2 A of Durgapur Steel Plant who connived with the dumper driver and allowed the aforesaid dumper carrying stolen Nut Coke to go out of the plant without verification; that the CISF personnel have also tampered with the record to cover their lapses; that the incident tarnished the image of the CISF in the eyes of the public which is indicative that the petitioner/respondent failed to exercise his command and control over his subordinates. The third charge was that the petitioner/respondent sent a false report to the CISF Headquarters with an intention to mislead his senior officers after a lapse of 2 days, on 12.06.2005 and he intentionally did not point out the connivance of CISF personnel posted at the gate neither did he verify the record maintained in the register which had been tampered by overwriting by the CISF personnel and the petitioner/respondent did this with a view to shield the corrupt CISF personnel. By the aforesaid memorandum, the petitioner/respondent was directed to submit his written statement within ten days. That the petitioner/respondent vide letter dated 25.01.2006 requested the DIG, CISF Headquarters to supply him the copies of the fax message sent by him on 11.06.2005 and 12.06.2005, the preliminary enquiry report of P.K. Basu and the documents of the 2nd preliminary enquiry report with the name and designation of the officer who had conducted the said enquiry and the police investigation report but his request was turned down by letter dated 22.02.2006 of Addl. Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Sector Headquarters, Patna; that after the receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner/respondent wrote to the Director General, CISF for providing all the documents so as to submit his defence statement whereafter, by letter dated 08.05.2006, he was supplied some documents but his request for all documents was not entertained as being not relevant and he was informed that no preliminary enquiry has been cited as list of documents; that the petitioner/respondent vide letter dated 20.05.2006 again requested the Director General to supply him all the copies but it was not supplied to him.
(3.) ON the said ground, the respondent/petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition praying for quashing of the entire departmental proceedings including the charge sheet alleging that the same has been initiated on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the appellant/respondent No. 6, who is biased, as his promotion has become conditional on account of the writ filed by the petitioner/respondent and the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition.;