- (1.) This appeal by the employer under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3492 of 2000(R), whereby the learned Single Judge, after setting aside the order of punishment, remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate order for reinstatement and for inflicting a lesser punishment.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The respondent was a constable in Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. He was subjected to the departmental proceeding on the following charges: (i) He absented from duty in duty in C shift on 25.7.1998 without information/permission. (ii) Talked in an indisciplined manner with Assistant Commandant and refused to go for medical examination when ordered by superior. (iii) Deserted unit lines on 26.7.1998 and continued till the date of issuance of memorandum of charge. (iv) Habitual offender of committing various offences and misconduct and being incorrigible in nature in spite of the punishment awarded to him in past.
(3.) In the said departmental enquiry, the Enquiring Officer after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent, concluded the enquiry and submitted the report finding that the charges have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, the Commandant of C.I.S.F, Unit Bokaro Steel Limited, accordingly passed order on 30.1.1999 removing the respondent from service. Aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority, the respondent preferred appeal before the D.I.G., C.I.S.F., Bokaro, who, by order dated 22.7.1999, rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of removal from service. The respondent then challenged the said order by filing the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the misconduct with which the respondent was charged is neither serious not did it warrant dismissal from service. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced herein below: This Court does not understand as to how the period beyond 20.08.1998 (i.e., the date of issuance of the chargesheet) stood stretched up to 22.10.1998. There is no chargesheet that he was absent up to 22.10.1998 but in relation to this charge, the Disciplinary Authority says that he was unauthorizedly absent from 26.07.1998 to 22.10.1998. In the charge sheet, it is mentioned that the petitioner deserted unit lines at 0445 hrs. on 26.07.1998 and continuing the same till date.: "Till date" therefore, means that till the date of issuance of the chargesheet and the chargesheet was issued on 20.08.1998. In that view of the matter giving a finding that the petition was absent for eighty eight days appears to be a finding for which there was no chargesheet. So far as the charge No. 2 is concerned the same relates to talking in indisciplined manner under the influence of liquor. What was he talking about What was the indsicpline exhibited by him Was he abusing the senior officer There is no such indication in the charge sheet. Additionally from paragraph 4 of the order or removal, all that is apparent is that the Petitioner had consumed liquor and under its influence he misbehaved with the AC-Z-11 (C.W.-1). Thus from what is apparent on a bare reading of Annexure 2 is that whatever misconduct the Petitioner has been charged with, the same neither serious nor did nit warrant dismissal from service. The only thing that is relevant to be taken into consideration is that the Petitioner belonged to a disciplined force and therefore, his action was required to be disciplined and therefore taking alcohol within the service area was certainly not expected from him. The appellate order on appeal is again a confirmation of the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate and is not at all commensurate with the nature of the misconduct charged against him. However, for having acted in an indisciplined manner after having consumed alcohol within the service area the petitioner cannot be allowed to go totally scot free. He certainly deserves a punishment, but not removal from service. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders by reason whereof the petitioner has been removed from service are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Respondent No. 2 who will pass appropriate orders in relation to reinstatement and shall also consider the desirability of inflicting a lesser punishment after giving adequate opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law.;