✦ High Court of India

(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Prasanta Karmakar v. 1. The Union of India 2. Director General,Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi. 3

Case Details

1 W.P.(S) No. 2793 of 2002 (An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Prasanta Karmakar ... ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India 2. Director General,Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 4. Commandant, C.I.S.F. Units B.C.C.L. Dhanbad, Jharkhand. . …... Respondents

Legal Reasoning

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. Faizur Rahman, C.G.C., UOI PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR By Court: On 18.2.2013, when the matter was called out, on second call also counsel for the petitioner was absent. Again on 01.03.2013, when the matter was called out, on second call also counsel for the petitioner was again absent. On 23.08.2013, the matter was again listed and the counsel for the petitioner was absent on that day also. Today when the matter has been called out, counsel for the petitioner is again absent and therefore, I proceed to decide the matter on merits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner who is an Ex-Constable, was initially posted at C.I.S.F. Unit C.C.W.O., Dhanbad Patherdih Coal Washery. On 9.7.1999, a First Information Report was lodged by N.M. Methew, Inspector, C.I.S.F., alleging that in the night of 6/7-7-1999 at about 1.30 hrs. a 2 person namely Mukhtiyar Singh came and informed that a person was lying on the road in front of the C.C.W.O. Gate in injured condition. The First Information Report was initially registered against unknown person. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 12.7.1999 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Article of charges against the petitioner read as under: “ARTICLE OF CHARGE :1 That, the said C.I.S.F. No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar of CISF Unit CCWO Dhanbad, deployed for duties at Patherdih Coal Washery is charged with “grave mis-conduct” in that, he visited CISF/CCWO Hqrs, Saraidhella on 06/07th July'99 on a short leave permission from his Company Commander (approx. 04. Hrs.). But, the said CISF No. 944521801 Constable Prasanta Karmakar failed to return to his place of work, i.e. Patherdih Coal Washery, Patherdih, and unauthorisedly stayed back at Unit Hqrs, in the intervening night of 06-07th July,99. While staying at Unit Hqrs Const. Prasanta Karmakar brutally attacked/assaulted CISF No: 734300241 HC/GD. S.C. Hota along with his other accomplices, without any apparent provocation and as a result of which HC/GD S.C. Hota succumbed to his injuries in BCCL Central Hospital, Dhanbad on 08.07.99 at about 12.30 Hrs. This alleged cold blooded attack/assault leading to murder on the part of the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar is an act of criminal nature and is a “ grave mis-conduct” and is highly unbecoming of a member of an Armed Force, and hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE: II That, the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar of CISF Unit CCWO Dhanbad, deployed for duties at Patherdih Coal 3 Washery is charged with “gross indiscipline and gross mis-conduct” in that, he, on 06th July'99 sought permission from his Company Commander for a short Out -Pass from 08.15 Hrs. to 1200 Hrs, i.e. for 04(four Hrs. to vist Unit Hqrs at Saraidhella, allegedly, to collect his salary for the month of June, 1999. After his arrival at CCWO Hqrs. the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar did not return to his place of work, i.e., Patherdih Coal Washery and remained absent from Patherdih Coal Washery and as well as from his duty post without any permission/intimation from Competent Authority. This act on the part of the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta karmakar tantamounts to “gross indiscipline and gross mis-conduct” and is unbecoming of a member of an Armed Force, and hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE: III That, the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar of CISF Unit CCWO Dhanbad, deployed for duties at Patherdih Coal Washery is charged with “Serious mis- conduct” in that, when the said Constable Prasanta Karmakar stayed back in the CCWO Hqrs in the intervening night of 06-07th July, 1999 a few CISF Personnel of CCWO Hqrs brutally attacked and assaulted CISF No.734300241 HC/GD S.C.Hota and as a result of which the Said HC/GD S.C. Hota subsequently succumbed to injury. But, the said Constable Prasanta Karmakar being very much present at the site of beating of CISF No. 734300241 HC/GD S.C. Hota, failed to prevent such a heinous crime being inflicted upon one of the fellow CISF Head constable in his presence and he did not take any action to prevent the brutal attack/assault going on. This act on the part of CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta karmakar amounts to serious 4 misconduct and highly unbecoming of a member of a member of an Armed Force and hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE: IV That, the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar of CISF Unit CCWO Dhanbad, deployed for duties at Patherdih Coal Washery is charged with “gross misconduct” in that, the said Constable Prasanta Karmarkar in the morning of 07.07.99 retunred back to Patherdih Coal Washery and further tried to obliterate the evidences and knowingly put his signature in the duty deployment chart of Quarter Guard at Washery and thereby Patherdih Coal attempted to wrongly show his presence on duty at Patherdih Coal Washery Quarter Guard in the night of 06.07.99. Making wrong entry in an attempt to create an alibi amounts Const. Prasanta Karmakar to “gross misconduct” and highly unbecoming of a member of an Armed Force and hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE: V That, the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar of CISF Unit CCWO Dhanbad, deployed for duties at Patherdih Coal Washery is charged with “gross misconduct” in that, the said Const. Prasanta Karmakar, tried to mis-lead and suppress the fact of his alleged involvement in the beating incident of HC/GD S.C. Hota in the intervening night of 06-07th July, 1999 in front of his superiors. This act on the part of CISF No. Prasanta Karmakar 944521801 Const. amounts to “serious misconduct” and highly unbecoming of an Armed Force and hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE: VI That the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar of CISF Unit CCWO Dhanbad, deployed for duties at Patherdih Coal Washery is charged with “gross indiscipline and 5 gross misconduct” in that, in the intervening night of 06-07th July, 1999 the said CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar is alleged to had a drinking session till late in the evening, in Wireless Operator's room located at the office complex of Deputy Commandant. This act on the part of the said CISF No. Prasanta Karmakar 944521801 Const. tantamounts to “gross indiscipline and gross mis-conduct” and highly unbecoming of an Armed Force, and hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE: VII That, the said CISF No: 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar of CISF Unit CCWO Dhanbad, deployed for duties at Patherdih Coal Washery, on earlier occasions had been awarded “CENSURE” for his “gross indiscipline, mis-conduct and dereliction” to duty. But, the said Constable Prasanta karmakar remained incorrigeble. This previous punishments of the individual will be taken into account for fixing the quantuam of punishment if the present charges levelled, are proved against the CISF No. 944521801 Const. Prasanta Karmakar.” 4. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3334 of 1999 and by order dated 02.05.2001, it was ordered that departmental proceeding shall continue against the petitioner except Article of charge nos. I, III, & V. During the departmental enquiry as many as six witnesses and one Court witness have been produced by the department. On conclusion of departmental enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted finding charge nos. II, IV and VII proved. The disciplinary authority passed the order of penalty dated 22.9.2001 and dismissed the petitioner from service. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 5.12.2001. In these 6 circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating as under: 10. "That in reply to paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 26 of the writ petition it is stated and submitted that the charge of Memorandum under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules 1969 was issued against the petitioner on 15.10.1999 where in 7 Article of charges were levelled against him for various cases of misconducts and indisciplinary act on his part and the petitioner was given opportunity to submit his representation against the same within 10 days of receipt of the said memorandum. But the petitioner had submitted the application on 25.10.99 requesting Disciplinary Authority to supply the copies of listed documents and few additional documents and to allow 10 days more time from the date of supply of those documents for submission of his written representation against the charge memo. It is further stated that the petitioner was supplied with the copies of listed documents only and he was granted 3 days more time from the date of receipt of the copies of listed documents for submission of reply to the charge memo vide letter dated 28.10.99. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid memorandum on 06.11.1999 wherein he had denied all the charges. 11. That in reply to paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is stated that as the petitioner had denied the charges in his reply against the memorandum, Inspector/Exe. Pawan Kumar of CISF Unit, CCWO Dhanbad was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 11.11.99. 12. That in reply to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition it is stated and submitted that the petitioner along with 3 others had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3334 of 99 before the Jharkhand High Court with a prayer to stay the disciplinary proceeding initiated against them. The case was taken up on 15.12.99 and an interim order was passed wherein it was directed to put up case after four weeks. It was further directed that the 7 departmental proceeding shall continue, but no final order shall be passed till further order. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was conducted as per rule and a copy of enquiry report was also served upon the petitioner and the petitioner also submitted his representation against the enquiry report. But no final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 15.12.99. 13. That in reply to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition it is stated and submitted that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was conducted by the Enquiry Officer as per the procedure laid down and the petitioner was given all the reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The Enquiry Officer had recorded the statements of all the listed 06 Pws and one court witness in presence of the petitioner and he was given the opportunity to cross examine them. After recording the statements, copies were supplied to the petitioner on proper acknowledgment. It is further stated that the petitioner was examined by the Enquiry Officer and given opportunity to give his statement and he had given his statement in his defence. The petitioner was also given opportunity to produce his defence witnesses and defence documents, if any, but he did not produce any defence witness or defence document to defend his case. After completion of the Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted the Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority, holding the Article of charges No. 1, II, III, IV, V and VII proved and Article of charge No. VI not proved for want of sufficient evidence. A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.04.2000 giving him the opportunity to submit his representation against the Enquiry Report, if any, within a period of 15 days from the date or receipt of same which was acknowledged by him on 21.04.2000. But on 30.04.2000, the petitioner had submitted an application to the Disciplinary Authority requesting for supply of type written copy of enquiry report of Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner was supplied the type written copy of the enquiry 8 report of Enquiry Officer and allowed 15 days more time from the date of receipt of enquiry report for submission of his reply against it vide order dated 25.07.2000, which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 25.07.2000. The petitioner had submitted his representation against the enquiry report on 10.08.2000”. 6. A perusal of the documents on record, would clearly indicate that the department examined as many as six witnesses and one Court witness has also been examined and all have supported the charge against the petitioner. In the departmental enquiry, charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved and the disciplinary authority on evidence recorded by the enquiry officer, passed the order of penalty dated 22.09.2001. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 5.12.2001. It has been brought on record that the petitioner has been convicted in criminal case also. I find no illegality in the order passed by the

Decision

departmental authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 30/8/ 2013 Satyarthi/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments