- (1.) BY Court Heard Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Faiz -Ur -Rahman, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER in this writ application has challenged the order dated 23.08.2004 (Annexure -11) passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which his services were terminated with immediate effect. Challenge is also to the order dated 24.01.2005 (Annexure -12) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal, was rejected. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner being a Constable in the CISF, was posted at Internal Security Company No. 43, Oil Duliajan, Assam. On 20.01.2004, he was deployed at the main gate of the CISF SS Camp, Rajgarh between 17.00 Hrs. to 21.00 Hrs. with his S.L.R. Butt No. 270, Registration No. 16055161. The Head Constable, General Duty, namely Sri M.Tirkey and Constable Sri K.L.Vaiphei were the other personnel who were deployed at the gate on duty. On the charges that he had left his place of duty leaving the S.L.R. at the gate and had gone outside inspite of objections made by his superior namely the Head Constable, General Duty and further on the charge that after having gone out from the place of duty, he had indulged in quarral with outsiders and had also consumed alcohol and after returning to the place of duty he had indiscriminately fired two rounds from his S.L.R. without any prior permission from his superior in office, he was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.
(3.) TO the charges which were served upon him, he had submitted his written statements and he was also allowed to participate in the departmental proceeding. On conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer recorded his finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. A copy of the enquiry report along with the second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. In response, the petitioner had submitted his show cause replies against the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority, being not satisfied with the explanation offered and on the basis of the enquiry report, passed the impugned order of punishment terminating the petitioner's service with immediate effect. Against the order of his termination, the petitioner preferred appeal but the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned appellate order.;