WA 110/2017. Gauhati High Court

Case Number:WA 110/2017
Judgement Date:May 15, 2019
Court:Gauhati High Court
SUMMARY

Writ Appeals under the Gauhati High Court Rules

 
FREE EXCERPT

WA NO.110 of 2017

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. AJI T SI NGH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE MANOJI T BHUYAN

1 5 .5 .2 0 17

( Aj it Sin gh , C.J.)

Mr.D.C Borah, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

Heard on admission.

This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the Union of I ndia challenging the impugned Judgment and order dated 12/ 08/ 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed respondent’s WP(C) No. 5399/ 2008.

  1. Respondent - Gopal Chandra Kalita, a Constable in the Central I ndustrial Security Force - was charged with the allegation that when he was discharging his duties as a Constable in the Central I ndustrial Security Force, while his Unit was deployed in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission at Nazira, he was detailed to shift duty of Cable PTL at the D.S.A.B Rig from 1700-2100 hours on 17/ 12/ 2005 and from 0500-0900 hours on 18/ 12/ 2005. After his 2nd shift duty was over at 9 AM on 18/ 12/ 2005, 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 attempted theft. Subsequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, which was drawn up on 30/ 12/ 2005 under Rule 36 of the Central I ndustrial Security Force Rules, 2001. The respondent was charged with gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and dereliction of duty.

  2. The respondent submitted his reply denying the charge levelled against him and contended that the cables were kept under cover and

    Page 1 of 4

    therefore, the same got undetected during his shift duty although they could have been stolen only at night and not during his 2nd shift duty

    from 0500 hours to 0900 on 18/ 12/ 2005. As regards the first shift duty until 9 PM on 17/ 12/ 2005, the respondent had stated that since the “OK” report was given by the Post Commander, the possibility of the theft in the first shift duty was wholly ruled out.

  3. Being dissatisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and notice was given to the respondent on 21/ 01/ 2006 by the I nquiry Officer to attend the enquiry and apply for defence assistance with the consent of the nominated persons. The respondent prayed for appointment of Head Constable G. Venkatachalam of the Central I ndustrial Security Force Unit, NLC, Neiveli. But since the named Defence Assistant was posted at Kerala, the prayer was rejected and the petitioner was made to defend...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL