JUDGMENT

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.

1. In this Special Leave Petition, the Union of India and its functionaries assail the judgment and order dated 6th of March, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court whereby while allowing the appeal preferred by the writ Petitioner-Respondent it had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and quashed the order of his compulsory retirement.

2. Leave granted.

3. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ Petitioner-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'writ Petitioner') was a constable in the Railway Protection Force and on 5th June, 1995 deployed for duty at Asansol Railway Station. One Harish Chandra Ram made a complaint that the writ Petitioner along with another constable dragged him to the yard, assaulted him and robbed Rs. 400/- and key of a tractor from his possession. He was put under suspension and on 28.6.1995 served with the memo of charge containing the following allegation:

On 5.6.95 while he was deployed for duty at Down Marshalling Post/Asansol along with Const. Nil Rameshwar from 16/00 Hrs. to 24/00 Hrs. they jointly caught hold of a passenger namely Harish Chandra Ram who had gone at the west end of Platform No. 3/4 of Asansol Rly. Station at about 19/00 Hrs. to ease himself dragged him to the yard, assaulted him and robbed Rs. 400/- and the key of a tractor from his possession. On search 2 Nos. of 100 rupee notes and key of a tractor were recovered from Const. Rameshwar.

4. The enquiry officer held him guilty of the charge and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the same inflicted the punishment of removal from service. The writ Petitioner preferred appeal and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, set aside the order of removal and directed for de novo enquiry and while doing so, observed as follows:

2. However, I find that there were some gross irregularities in the course of the proceeding enquiry. First, from the very beginning of the proceeding the delinquent should have been given the option to engage a "friend" for defending his case and thereafter in presence of his "friend" the enquiry should be started. Secondly, the complainant was not examined during the course of proceeding enquiry. Thirdly, the complainant's story of disposal/delivery of a tractor at Burdwan and boarding a train from Asansol after that required further examination by E.O. and cross examination by the delinquent.

5. Thereafter a de novo enquiry was held in which the writ Petitioner was allowed to engage a friend. However, Harish Chandra Ram, the victim was not examined. Nonetheless the enquiry officer held the writ Petitioner guilty of the charge. A copy of the enquiry-report was made available to the writ Petitioner and he submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority considered the report of enquiry officer and reply of the writ Petitioner and passed the order of removal from service. As regards the plea of the writ Petitioner regarding non-examination of Harish Chandra Ram, the disciplinary authority observed as follows:

... In the 3rd para, he has alleged that the complainant Sri Harish Chandra Ram could not be presented in the enquiry and hence the complaint is false. But this defence of Shri Guha cannot be accepted because the fact of the matter is that Harish Chandra Ram was illegally detained and released by const./Guha along with C/Rameshwar and C/Guha has clearly accepted in his statement about incident except of course that he has not snatched money. So, one cannot deny the complaint as false just because in the later date the complainant could not come before. It is evident from the case file that the E.O. has taken all pains to call Shri Harish Chandra Ram from his native place many times but it appears that under fear in mind complainant could not dare to attend departmental enquiry which was conducted at RPF Post. However, written complaint which is duly supported by seizure list cannot be denied as such.

6. Writ Petitioner p