Disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with statutory rules upheld; failure to prevent a security breach justified penalty of withheld increments.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The petitioner, a Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), bearing Force No.944521079, has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash and set aside the final order of punishment dated 03.10.2008, bearing No.V- 15014/DSP/Disc/Maj/JPA/08-10464 as well as the purported revision order dated 27.07.2009, bearing No.V-11014/NES/LC/Rev-24/2009-5739, together with all consequential benefits attendant thereto.

2. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, posted at the CISF Unit, Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP), and was assigned duty on 20.04.2008 from 13:00 hrs. to 21:00 hrs. between Watch Towers Nos.02 and 03 of the Alloy Steel Plant (ASP). The said stretch of deployment was proximate to boundary wall pillars 299 to 301, adjoining the slag dump yard, a location identified as sensitive due to storage of scrap metal of considerable quantity and value.

3. During his duty hours at or about 20:40 hrs., an incident occurred wherein a group of approximately 12 to 13 miscreants allegedly entered the slag dump area and attempted to remove about one metric tonne of scrap material. The petitioner was reportedly stationed within visible range approximately 20 metres from the point of intrusion. However, he did not restrain or challenge the miscreants, who, upon being detected during a surprise inspection conducted by the Assistant Commandant, Shri S. K. Jha, fled from the scene leaving the scrap material behind.

4. Following the incident, a Memorandum of Charge was issued to the petitioner under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The petitioner duly acknowledged receipt of the charge memorandum on 08.05.2008 and submitted his written statement of defence on 15.05.2008, categorically denying the allegations.

5. Pursuant thereto, Shri A. K. Mishra, Assistant Commandant, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Inspector (Executive) Aswani Kumar was designated as the Presenting Officer, vide Orders No.430 and 431 dated 17.05.2008 respectively. The departmental enquiry proceeded in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Upon completion of the evidentiary phase, the Presenting Officer submitted his written brief on 21.07.2008.

6. The petitioner was given opportunity to respond to the said brief and he submitted his written representation on 28.07.2008, asserting that he had at all times remained alert and had no opportunity to prevent the fleeting occurrence. After consideration of the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 10.08.2008, holding the charge as proved.

7. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, afforded the petitioner a further opportunity to submit representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer in adherence to the principles of natural justice.

8. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:-

i. The petitioner had been discriminated with the two personnel of crime branch and two personnel of the Q.R.T. party who were also present in the area at the relevant point of time.

ii. In spite of several request the prayer for change of enquiry officer was refused, which was in violation of natural justice and also denial of Reasonable Opportunity.

iii. The petitioner had not been given the complaint of criminal activities, he would not have been victimized.

iv. After the petitioner had passed information about the criminal activities, two personnel from the crime branch and two personnel of the Q.R.T. party reached the area and they were present in the area at the time of arrival of Shri S.K. Jha, Assistant Commandant, therefore the complaint of the said Assistant Commandant against the petitioner was unreasonable and unfair.

v. The chronology of events and the time schedule as had been mentioned in the revision petition and explained in reply of the charge-sheet had not been examined.

vi. Without any examination of the