The principles of natural justice were not violated by not supplying the petitioner with the entire copy of the preliminary enquiry report, as the relevant portion of the report was provided to him.

Arindam Sinha, J.

Two counts of charge have been held to be proved against the petitioner. Mrs. Sengupta, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submitted article of charge no.1 was held to have been proved against her client in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as a vital document being the preliminary enquiry report was not made available to him as would appear from the enquiry report itself. She further submitted without prejudice to her first contention, the finding on the second charge as held to have been proved in the enquiry report is perverse and not supported by the materials that were considered in the enquiry. She still further submitted the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and thereafter the revisional authority had merely reproduced the enquiry officer’s findings and confirmed the same.

2. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted the disciplinary proceeding was held in compliance with all provisions of law and on observing the principles of natural justice. The incident took place at around 8.45 p.m. on 7th May, 2004 but the petitioner being the company commander who was entirely responsible and solely in charge of the company manning the gate, failed to supervise the movement of the truck and trailor. The incident remained undetected by him and it was reported or came to the knowledge of the authorities otherwise on 18th May, 2004. He submitted minor punishment was awarded after investigation and giving the petitioner full opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner had exhausted the statutory remedies available and all orders passed in the matter were with reasons, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances brought out in the enquiry.

3. Article of charge no.1 against the petitioner was that he failed to control his subordinate who violated the unit standing order as for change of duty of CISF personnel and did not supervise the duty roster/deployment of men which tantamounts to gross negligence, dereliction of duty being an Inspector detailed as company commander of a company in a disciplined force. Article of charge no. II against the petitioner was that he showed lack of command and control of smooth functioning of GRJ gate no.3 in supervising movement of the truck and trailor through it on 7th May, 2004 at about 2040 hrs. which tantamounts to gross negligence and dereliction of duty by him being an Inspector detailed as company commander of ‘C’ company, an armed force of the Union.

4. It appears from the enquiry report dated 6th December, 2004 the listed prosecution documents did not include the preliminary enquiry report. On request having been made by the petitioner, inter alia, relevant portion (analysis and conclusion) of the preliminary enquiry report was provided to him. The enquiry officer found from the evidence which had come on record, it was explicitly clear the shift-in-charge of ‘B’ shift on 7th May, 2004 had changed duty posts of a constable. The said person had admitted he did not obtain approval of the company commander, i.e. the petitioner, for effecting such change nor made any GD entry in that regard. The enquiry officer relied on exhibit P-II being office order dated 13th July, 2003 containing necessary guidelines in the matter of change of duty posts. The enquiry officer found it was established a valid office order restricting change of duty posts was existing and the change made by the shift-in-charge was clear violation of such standing order. The enquiry officer found the said office order was distributed to all company commanders from which he understood the onus of implementation thereof lay with the concerned company commanders. Relying on the deposition of PW 1 and 2 he found it was possible for the company commander to find out any changes made by the shift-in-charge even if his permission was not obtained. It was also his duty to monitor and check whether his orders were scrupulo