IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee WPA 1844 of 2012 Tarun Chandra Mondal -Vs.-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kedareswar Chakraborty, Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty.

For the Union of India : Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Mr. Tapan Bhanja.

Heard on : 18.03.2025 Judgment on :02.04.2025 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.:-

1. The justifiability of the charge sheet issued under a Memo. dated 26.02.2011, Enquiry report dated 25.06.2011, final order issued by the Disciplinary Authority, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 17.08.2011 have been called in question in this writ petition. Furthermore, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

2. Before addressing the contentious issue, it would be apt to outline the key facts, as projected in the writ petition, which are as follows:

a) The petitioner joined Central Industrial Security Force (in short, CISF) as constable against the quota reserved for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe (in short, ST) community on 10.09.1991. While rendering service in CISF unit of Mejia Thermal Power Station (MTPS)/ Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), a major penalty charge sheet under a memo. dated 26.02.2011 was served upon the petitioner. The charge sheet contained two articles of charge, which are reproduced hereinbelow:

“ 1. That no. 911400795 Constable Tarun Chandra Mondal of CISF Unit, MTPS (DVC) Mejia in order to gain appointment as Constable/GD in CISF authorities submitted false certification of ST being no. 1560-S/T dated 29.06.1986 and thus succeeded in securing appointment of Constable/GD from the Quota meant for ST candidates. His such act tantamount to grave misconduct and thus unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force like CISF. Hence the charge.

2. That no. 911400795 Constable Tarun Chandra Mondal of CISF Unit, MTPS (DVC), Mejia was granted 07 days CL w.e.f. 01.1.2011 to 17.1.2011 on the ground of his mother’s serious illness. He required to rejoin the Unit on 18.1.2011/FN on expiry of leave. But he failed to do so and is still overstaying leave defying 02 Nos. of Call-up Notices sent to him by post besides sending 01 No. Telegram. The above act of the individual tantamount to gross indiscipline and dereliction towards his Bonafide duties. Hence, the charge.”

b) The petitioner, through two separate applications dated 10.06.2011 and 16.06.2011, requested an extension of 15 days to submit his reply to the charge sheet. However, no such extension was granted. Furthermore, the petitioner, by an application dated 15.06.2011, requested the supply of specific documents necessary to prepare his reply. Despite this request, no documents were provided to him. On the other hand, the presenting officer submitted a written brief dated 27.04.2011. In an unwarranted rush, the Enquiry Officer hastily issued his findings without allowing the petitioner adequate time or access to the necessary documents to effectively respond to the charge sheet.

c) The findings returned by the Enquiry Officer assert that the charges levelled against the petitioner were served upon him through a memorandum dated 26.05.2011. In response, the petitioner submitted a representation challenging the Enquiry Officer's report dated 18.05.2011, questioning its legality and/or veracity. Despite this, and based on the Enquiry Officer's report, the Disciplinary Authority (in short, DA) passed a final order on 30.06.2011, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.

d) The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the final order of the Disciplinary Authority (DA), but the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (AA) through an order dated 17.08.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a revisional application before the competent authority, which was also rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

3. In the writ petition, the petitioner specifically contended that