D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1575 of 2005 dated 29th April, 2010, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent was allowed by interfering with, the Inquiry Officer ' s report and it has been held by the learned Single Judge, by sitting in appeal, upon the decision of the Inquiry Officer's report that charges levelled against the respondent are not proved on the basis of the detailed analysis of the evidence on record. The petition was allowed hence, original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this respondent (original petitioner) was working as an Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force and charges were levelled against him as per Annexure 1 dated 15th May, 2002. The charges were to the effect that he had allowed 16 coal loaded t rucks to lift the coal though these truck-owners were prohibited. This work was done by this petitioner along with other co-security personnel who were posted at Karo Check Post of Kargali, unit of Central Coalfields Limited situated at District, Bokaro. The trucks were allowed to go out of the gate unauthorisedly. The charges levelled against this respondent were serious in nature.
(3.) It further appears from the facts of the case that the Inquiry Officer was appointed and adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent (original petitioner). Evidences have also been taken by the Inquiry Officer during course of the inquiry and on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer and on the basis of the documentary evidences on record, it has been held by the Inquiry Officer that the charges levelled against, the respondent delinquent have been proved. Looking to the evidences on record it cannot be said that Inquiry Officer's report was based upon no evidence at all. Departmental appeal was also preferred by the delinquent which was dismissed by the Departmental Appellate Authority. Looking to the inquiry, it appears that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the delinquent. There is no procedural lacuna in holding inquiry. Inquiry has been held by the competent authority. Looking to the evidences and report of Inquiry Officer, it cannot be said that the report of the Inquiry Officer is based upon no evidence.;