Disciplinary decisions must be supported by unequivocal evidence; mere recovery of funds or suspicion is insufficient to substantiate allegations of misconduct.

Judgment :

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This intra court appeal assails the order of learned Single Judge passed in WPA 17108 of 2004 decided on 13th September, 2021 whereby learned Single Judge has declined interference on the disciplinary proceedings and on the punishment of removal from service which was upheld by the appellate authority.

Back Ground Facts-

2. In short, the relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the appellant was initially appointed in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Durgapur on 12.7.1996. On 3.4.1984, he was injured in a firing by terrorists while remained posted in Punjab. The appellant was given gun wound medal because of the said incident.

3. The appellant was informed that he will be able to perform telephone duty and, therefore, he was not sent on pension whereas four other personnel who suffered injuries along with appellant and got said medal were sent on pension.

4. The appellant was placed under suspension on 12.12.1971. The same was followed by a charge-sheet issued on 15.1.1992. The appellant denied the charges in toto by filing reply on 25.1.1992. Dissatisfied with the reply of the appellant, the disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer after recording the evidence submitted his report on 30.4.1992. The appellant preferred a representation to the disciplinary authority against the report of the inquiry officer. The learned disciplinary authority by order dated 19.1.1993 inflicted the major punishment of removal from service.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this court in CO 3628(W) of 1993 which was decided on 7th February, 2002. Admittedly, the writ petition was dismissed by reserving liberty to prefer an appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules of 1955.

6. In turn, the appellant preferred a detailed appeal which came to be dismissed by order dated 2nd September, 2004.

7. In WPA 17108 of 2004, the appellant assailed the disciplinary proceeding, the punishment of removal and also the aforesaid appellate order. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the said writ petition.

Contention of appellant –

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority has not appointed any presenting officer to present the case of the prosecution. The enquiry officer played the role of presenting officer and enquiry officer simultaneously. Thus, he acted as a prosecutor and a judge and for this reason alone, departmental enquiry stands vitiated.

9. Learned counsel for appellant submits that two charges were alleged against the appellant in the charge-sheet dated 15th January, 1992. The appellant was exonerated from charge no.2 by the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority did not disagree with the said finding of the inquiry officer. However, the appellant was held guilty for charge no.1.

10. By placing heavy reliance on the language employed in Article 1 of charge- sheet, learned counsel for appellant submits that allegation against the appellant is that for the purpose of managing recruitment of two personnel in CRPF as Constable, namely, Gopal Das and Tarakeshwar Kewat, appellant took Rs.24,000/- as bribe from them with mala fide intention which is against the conduct Rule.

11. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant was only a security aid of a Member of the