Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. D.C. Borah, the learned Central Govt. Counsel (CGC).

2. The petitioner is a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and at the relevant time, his Unit was deployed with the ONGC, Nazira. He was detailed for shift duty at Cable PTL at the DSAB Rig from 1700—2100 Hrs. on 17.12.2005 and from 0500—0900 Hrs on 18.12.2005. Soon after his 2nd shift duty was over at 9 A.M., the theft of 30 meter length power cable was detected from the patrolling area and the lock in the lube oil store was also found broken for an attempted theft. Consequently a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up on 30.12.2005 (Annexure-1) under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CISF Rules’). The constable was charged with gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and dereliction of duty under the following imputation:-

“That No.:901405311 Constable G.C. Kalita of Sivasagar Sector, CISF Unit ONGC Nazira was detailed for duty at Cable PTL of DSAB Rig with Arms and ammunitions from 1700 to 2100 hrs on 17.12.05 and from 0500 hrs to 0900 hrs on 18.12.05. During his tenure of duty a theft place wherein 30 meters of power cable was stolen by miscreants/criminal from DSAB Rig and an attempt had also been made on the lube oil store by breaking the lock. A reply to this effect has been received from Shri A.K. Dhabaria, DIC, Rig-E-2000-9 and A GD entry to this effect has been made vide GD No.:242 dated 18.12.05. Subsequently a report has also been made vide GD No.:618 dated 18.12.05 at 1715 hrs by Coy. Commander Sivasagar Sector. An incident report to this effect has also been sent by Sector Commander to thie DIG, CISF Unit ONGC Nazira vide letter No.:CISF/ONGC(N)/SBS/35/2005/2623 dated 26.12.05. The above act on the part of 901405311 Constable G.C. Kalita amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and dereliction of duty. Hence the charge.”

3. In his reply furnished on 9.1.2006 (Annexure-2), the constable denied the charges and stated that the theft had not taken place during his shift duty. He further stated that the cables were kept under cover and therefore they could have been stolen only at night and not during the 2nd shift duty of the constable from 0500 Hrs onwards on 18.12.2005. As regards the first shift duty until 9 P.M. on 17.12.2005, since the OK report was given by the Post Commander, the possibility of the theft in the 1st shift duty was wholly ruled out by the delinquent.

4. Dissatisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and notice was given to the delinquent on 21.1.2006 by the Inquiry Officer to attend the enquiry and apply for defence assistance with the consent of the nominated persons. In his response of 30.1.2006 (page 34), the constable informed the Inquiry Officer that he was unable to secure any defence assistance from his own Unit but since Head Constable G. Venkatachalam of the CISF Unit NLC Neyveli has agreed to act as the defence counsel, the Inquiry Officer was requested to ensure the presence of the named defence assistant in the enquiry. However as the suggested Head Constable was posted at Kerala, the request for the assistance of the Head Constable G. Venkatachalam was rejected by the Inquiry Officer through his communication dated 8.2.2006 and thus the petitioner was forced to undertake a self defence exercise in the enquiry.

5. Initially the enquiry was conducted by Inspector Nagen Baglary but after he was transferred, Inspector S. Vasistha was appointed as the Inquiry Officer on 4.3.2006 and he concluded the proceeding.

6. As the charge was denied by the delinquent, 5 witnesses were pressed into service to prove the charge while one CISF Inspector was examined as a Court Witness. No defence witness or exhibit was adduced by the charged constable but he presented a defence statement before the Inquiry Officer.

7. The witnesses pr