The judgment establishes that inadequate training in handling a service rifle does not absolve a member of a disciplined force from the responsibility to be extra vigilant and careful, and that the nature of a criminal trial does not decisively impact a disciplinary proceeding.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The challenge in the instant proceeding is against the order dated 06.10.2003 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, ONGC, Sibsagar imposing the penalty of removal from service on the Petitioner as a disciplinary measure, as well as the order dated 23.01.2004 of the Deputy Inspector General (Central Industrial Security Force), Nazira, Sibsagar dismissing his departmental appeal preferred against the same.

2. I have heard Mrs. K. Deka, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

3. Briefly stated the pleaded case of the Petitioner is that while he was posted as a Constable at Lakwa Sector, CISF Unit, ONGC, Nazira, he was placed under suspension on 29.06.2003 in connection with an incident that had occurred on the previous day, i.e. on 28.06.2003 at about 1855 hours, which witnessed an accidental firing from his service rifle, resulting in the death of Constable N.K. Singh who succumbed to the injuries sustained thereby. In connection therewith, he was served with a Memorandum of Charges on 04.07.2003 carrying the following imputation-

That gross misconduct, carelessness in handling weapon and violation of standing order on the part of No. 952331674 Constable Ambi Ram Das of Lakwa Sector, CISF Unit, ONGC Nazira in that on 28.06.2003 at about 1855 hrs. he opened one round fire from his service rifle 7.62 mm SLR Butt No. 463 Regd. No. 63348 while getting ready for duty in the barrack to proceed for patrolling duty causing injury on the upper side of the left chest of No. 964651298 Constable Ngangban Kunje Singh who was sitting on the cot in the barrack and subsequently expired at 2130 hrs. in ONGC Hospital, Sivsagar, Assam.

4. He submitted his written reply on 16.07.2003 contending inter alia, that on 28.06.2003 he had been detailed for patrol duty at GGS VIII out post of Lakwa Sector from 1900 hrs to 0530 hrs. on 24.06.2003 and that when he was getting ready for the duty in the barrack, he fitted the loaded magazine in his SLR, which thereafter without his knowledge, got accidentally fired, as a result whereof, the deceased who was sitting on his bed in the barrack, got injured thereby and later was declared dead at the ONGC Hospital, Sibsagar. He denied to have been careless in handling the weapon and asserted that the firing had been purely unintentional, without his contribution in any manner whatsoever. He also contended that prior to the incident he had undergone one week's weapon handling course from 13.06.2003 to 20.06.2003 and that he had neither an adequate experience in handling such weapon nor was he adapted thereto.

5. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the Petitioner, appointed an Enquiry Officer who on the conclusion of the inquiry, submitted his report on 23.08.2003 holding the charge to be proved. A copy of the inquiry report was served on the Petitioner, to which he submitted his representation and eventually by the impugned order dated 06.10.2003 the penalty of removal was imposed. His statutory appeal having failed, he is before this Court.

6. The Respondents in their affidavit have asserted that the departmental inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with procedure prescribed by Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Rules) for his misconduct and careless act leading to the death of his colleague in service. According to them, the Petitioner being a member of the disciplined force was duty bound to be cautiously careful in the handling of the service rifle allotted to him and that he having failed to do so, was accordingly charged for misconduct and gross dereliction of duty. They have maintained that the proceedings had been conducted in due manner, in which the Petitioner had been accorded all reasonable opportunities and having regard to the gravity of the charge, the penalty of removal