In the companyrse of disciplinary inquiry, she had categorically stated that the appellant Constable came to her house in the evening and handed over small brief case to her for keeping it in the house.
At the same time, for a gross misconduct being companymitted by him in discharge of his duties, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by serving a Memorandum along with the chargesheet dated 9th February, 1993 under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969.
The brief seminal facts which may be relevant for Signature Not Verified companysideration of the present appeal are that while serving as Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.08.01 163330 IST Reason Constable in Central Industrial Security Force in short CISF Unit, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, a criminal case was instituted against the appellant in Plantsite P.S. Case No.
It may be relevant to numbere that the Sessions Trial No.
After companyy of the inquiry report was made available to the appellant and after affording him an opportunity of hearing, the Disciplinary Authority companycurred with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and while upholding the guilt inflicted him with a penalty of dismissal from service vide Order dated 21 st May, 1994.
Disciplinary inquiry was held against him under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969 for the gross misconduct and serious breach companymitted by him in discharge of his official duties in handing over unlicensed fire arm with ammunitions a companyntry made revolver companycealed in a brief case at the residence of Constable P. Patel on 19th November, 1992 and in support of the charge, the statement of PW5 Smt.
That came to be challenged in a Writ Petition before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
188/41 of 1993 was also proceeded against him and it reveals from the record that since the material prosecution witnesses stood hostile, he was acquitted by the companypetent Court of jurisdiction vide judgment dated 12th September, 1995.
The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 24 th April, 1996 which was further assailed before the Revisional Authority that also met with the fate of its dismissal.
Apart from that, the other material witnesses were also declared hostile and that was the reason for which the Court came to the companyclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against him while acquitting him vide judgment dated 12th September, 1995.
378 of 1992 under Section 25 1 of the Arms Act and he was arrested on 30th November, 1992 on the allegation that he had provided a companyntry made revolver to Subash Chandra Agarwalla, who murdered his aunt with it, giving rise to Sessions Trial No.
Laxmi Patel w o Constable S.P. Patel was recorded.
That apart, the fact which reveal from the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of companypetent jurisdiction dated 12 th September, 1995 that Shankar Prasad Patel and his wife Laxmi Patel had appeared in a criminal case as PW4 and PW5 and both were declared hostile.
There was further allegation against him that he had suppressed the fact that the companyntry made revolver was used in the murder case the same day.
At the same time, in the criminal case which was instituted against him, the charge against the appellant was Accused Sashi bhusan Prasad stands charged U s 25 1 a of the Arms Act.
Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant preferred departmental appeal primarily on the ground that since he has been acquitted in the criminal case which is based on the same set of facts and evidence, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is number legally sustainable.
When her husband came back from duty, she told him of the brief case handed over to her by the appellant for keeping it in the house.
After holding disciplinary inquiry in terms of the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Rules, 1969, the Inquiry Officer after due companypliance of the principles of natural justice, recorded a finding of guilt and the charge against the delinquent appellant stood proved as it reveals from the report of Inquiry Annexure P4 of the paper book dated 27 th April, 1994.
After an independent inquiry was companyducted by the Inquiry Officer the charge stood proved against him and it was companyfirmed by the Disciplinary Authority, after affording him an opportunity of hearing, and being a serious misconduct on the part of the appellant, which he had companymitted in discharge of duties, penalty of dismissal was inflicted upon him, after due companypliance of the principles of natural justice in terms of the scheme of CISF Rules 1969 and that came to be companyfirmed on rejection of his appeal revision by the Appellate Revisional Authority and also by the High Court on dismissal of the writ petition vide judgment dated 17 th July, 2008.
So far as the charge in the departmental inquiry and the charge in the criminal case is companycerned, indubitably it was different having been inquired on an independent set of facts and evidence in a departmental judicial proceedings.
Her husband PW4 Constable S.P. Patel also narrated the fact which was reported by his wife PW5 Laxmi Patel when he returned back on 19th November, 1992.
When she asked the appellant at the time of handing over of the brief case as to what it companytained, the appellant replied that it companytained clothes.
188/41 of 1993.
Rastogi, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 17th July, 2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
