The lack of proper enquiry and the absence of proof of the petitioner receiving the money led to the unsustainability of the final order and the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authority.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the proceeding, which culminated in the final order dated 24th February, 2011, whereby the petitioner was awarded a minor penalty, inter alia, including the appellate and the revisional orders dated 18th April, 2011 and 23rd December 2011 respectively.

2. The petitioner is an employee in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to “CISF”). At the material point of time he was posted at the CISF Unit, Kolkata Port Trust, when he was served with a memorandum of charge under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The statement of allegations as appearing from the translated copy of the memorandum of charge dated 7th February, 2011, calling upon the petitioner to make a representation within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum, is extracted hereinbelow:

Statement of allegation under rule 37 of CISF Rules 2001 against No.904490833 constable Ashok Das of CISF Unit, KoPT, Kolkata, A Coy.

That No.904490833 Constable Ashok Das of CISF Unit, KoPT, Kolkata, A Coy, was detailed for duties from 0500 hrs to 1300 hrs on 27.01.2011 at KPD – II Gate No.13 along with ASI/Exec S K Baskey, HC/GD Md Giasuddin and Constable Hare Krishna. During the surprise area checking from 1130 hrs to 1230 hrs by Shri R K Vaish, Deputy Commandant, Inspector/Exec. Kishor Kumar, (Coy commander a Coy), Sub-Inspector/Exec. A K Biswas (Coy 21/C) , and Constable D Majhi (CIW), an amount of Rs.150/-was found wrapped in old DDP paper behind the wall of Coy Office, near KPD Gate No.2, which exhibits collection of illegal money by the on duty personnel in the Gate. The above act is tantamount to violation of the Order, negligence on duty, irresponsible and discipline act. Which is not expected from a disciplined member of the Armed Force like CISF. Hence the charge.

3. The petitioner had duly responded to the said memorandum by a communication in writing dated 16th February, 2011, denying all material allegations therein. The said proceeding was, however, finally disposed of by a final order/report dated 24th February, 2011 whereby the Assistant Commandant upon arriving at a finding that money was illegally collected by the members of the force, the charge having been established and the petitioner having been found guilty of the allegations levelled against him, had imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment for one (1) year which will not have the effect on his pension.

4. Although, the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal, the same was, however, rejected by an order dated 18th April, 2011. The petitioner had thereafter filed a revisional application. The revisional authority also did not interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority.

5. Challenging the aforesaid orders and the disciplinary proceeding, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate representing the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the memorandum of charge submits that a serious allegation of illegal gratification has been levelled against the petitioner. Although, the petitioner had duly responded to the memorandum of charge by denying all material allegations, the respondents without holding a proper enquiry had concluded that the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved. It is submitted that even from the final order it would not appear that there is any proof of the petitioner taking illegal gratification. There is no proof of any document as regards the factum of receipt of such illegal gratification and having regard to the same, no inference can be drawn that the petitioner was involved in accepting illegal gratification on the basis of suspicion, in absence of any proof. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has relied on a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, D