The absence of a Presenting Officer does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings if conducted fairly, and misconduct is defined as conduct inconsistent with the faithful discharge of duty.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the final order of punishment dated 22.09.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority, the order dated 07.12.2002 passed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the revisional authority on 17.07.2003 in this writ petition.

2. While the petitioner, being a constable of CISF unit, was deployed at Durgapur Steel Plant (for short "DSP"), Durgapur, he was served with a charge sheet under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules 1969 vide Office Memorandum dated 21.03.2001.

3. The first charge against the petitioner was that while on duty at PWS gate in Durgapur Steel Plant on 09.02.2001 from 1300 hrs. to 2100 hrs., he allowed the sentry of watch Tower No. 13 namely, constable Anil Das to go out through PWS gate leaving rifle and ammunition issued to him at PWS gate unsafe. The second charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner exhibited gross misconduct, indiscipline and sheer negligence towards his duties in that while he was detailed for the security duty at PWS gate in DSP from 1300 hrs. to 2100 hrs. on 09.02.2001, and he did not extend any help to the personnel of crime wing when they shouted for help at about 2020 hrs. on 09.02.2001 for apprehending the criminals who entered inside the plant and were stealing property of DSP.

4. Petitioner submitted his reply denying both the charges. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. After completion of inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.08.2001 holding both articles of charges as proved. Petitioner submitted his written representation against the inquiry report.

5. The disciplinary authority passed the final order dated 22.09.2001 holding that both the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs. 3350/- to Rs. 3200/- in time scale of pay for a period of one year with effect from 01.10.2001. It was further ordered that the petitioner will not earn increments during the period of reduction and that the punishment will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the final order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, by an order dated 07.12.2002, dismissed the said appeal petition. Petitioner thereafter filed the revision petition which was dismissed by the revisional authority by an order dated 17.07.2003.

7. Being aggrieved by the final order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate order and the revisional order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

8. Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the documents sought for by the petitioner were not supplied to him. He further contended that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority and in the absence of the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer acted as Prosecutor. He, thus, submitted that for such reason the inquiry proceedings got vitiated. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported at AIR (2018) SC 4860; Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and Another reported at (2008) 3 SCC 484 and a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Choudhury vs. State of West Bengal reported at (2011) 2 CHN (Cal) 498. Mr. Mahapatra further contended that the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority is of a nature not falling under Rule 31 of CISF Rules 1969 (for short "1969 Rules"). He further contended that the 1969 Rules did not empower the authority to award punishment having cumulative effect. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon an order of the co-ordinate bench dated 26.11.2014 passed in WP No. 17354 (W) of 2001