Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Jai Prakash Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -Union of India.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 1984 dated 24.03.2012 by which the charges levelled against the petitioner was found proved and in terms of Rule 32(1) and Rule 34 of the C.I.S.F. Rules, 2001 the petitioner was given a punishment of removal from service which order was affirmed in appeal as contained in memo No. 4965 dated 27.04.2012 as well as in revision as contained in memo No. 9959 dated 07.09.2012 and which are also the subject matter of challenge in this present application. The petitioner was employed as a constable and was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. A departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted against the petitioner with respect to the charges which are quoted hereinunder: -
(3.) THE petitioner had given a detailed reply to the charges on 22.06.2012 in which so far as the charge No. 1 is concerned, the same was denied but the petitioner has accepted the charge with respect to the previous punishment on account of indisciplined action on his part. In course of the departmental proceedings having found both the charges proved an order was passed on 24.03.2012 by the respondent No. 4 as contained in memo No. 1984 in which while exercising the powers under the C.I.S.F. Rules, the petitioner was given a punishment of removal from service. The order dated 24.03.2012 was challenged in appeal in which on 27.04.2012 the respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. A revision followed before the respondent No. 2 and vide order dated 07.09.2012 as contained in memo No. 9959 the revision preferred on behalf of the petitioner was also dismissed.;