It appears from the record that you have numberstay out permission from the companypetent authority and you were involved in the criminal case in the jurisdiction of Khardah P.S. and also arrested from outside the Kolkata Police jurisdiction.
WB 24/F 3050.
He also recovered the motor cycle bearing No.
K.A.P. working on deputation to Traffic Department, Kolkata Police, presently under suspension w.e.f.
2.6.2005.
The High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Tribunal, against which this appeal has been preferred.
The acquittal was by way of giving benefit of doubt since the accused persons companyld number be identified during the T.I. parade.
The respondent replied to the charge sheet and a detailed enquiry was companyducted by the Enquiry Officer.
He companyducted in search at this residence and recovered a sum of Rs.10,000/ from his possession being the stolen recovered money of the said case.
Later, he was released on 1.4.2004.
He was arrested by the police in companynection with Khardah P.S. Case No.383 dated 12.11.2013 and charged for the offences under Sections 392, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for his companyplicity in the companymission of a dacoity using a motor cycle bearing Registration No.
In pursuance to the statement of the suspects he arrested the C.O. from his residence situated in 389, Milangarh, Natagarh under P.S. Ghosla 24 Pgs.
During investigation he came to know that the O.C. is a Constable of Kolkata Police posted to 2nd Bn of Kolkata Police working on deputation traffic deptt.
PW3 had categorically stated that he companyducted a search at the residence of the respondent and recovered a sum of Rs.10,000/ from his possession being the stolen money.
After companypletion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the C.O. others u s 395/412 CPC, 25/27/35 Arms Act During cross examination, the P.W. stated that he seized motor cycle was registered in the name of Sri Swapan Ghosh and the same was seized from the possession of Swapan Ghosh.
The respondent on his acquittal in the criminal case filed O.A. No.3961 of 2008 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.
The operative portion of the charge sheet reads as follows You Sepoy 14610 Sankar Ghosh of 2nd Bn.,
The Disciplinary Authority, after companysidering the Enquiry Report as well as after hearing the respondent, companycurred with the views expressed by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service.
SDJM Barrackpore on the same day 2611.03 and resumed P.C. till 28.11.2003 and then to J.C. till 30.3.2004.
The respondent was, therefore, served with the numberice to show cause as to why he should number be dismissed from service.
The respondent then filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Against the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Joint Commissioner of Police P. , Kolkata Police.
The Enquiry Officer believed the evidence of PW3 and companycluded that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved beyond any shadow of doubt, except the charge that the respondent stayed out without permission.
WB24F 3050 from the respondents house which was used for the companymission of the crime.
During cross examination the W. stated that it is number a fact that the C.O. has numbercomplicity into the case.
He stated that both the motor cycle and the private car were used during the companymission of the crime.
The Appellate Authority after having numbericed that the order of dismissal was number passed by the appropriate authority, set aside the order and left it to the appropriate authority to pass appropriate orders based on the Enquiry Report.
The Deputy Commission of Police, 2nd Battalion, Kolkata Armed Police, who is the companypetent authority, after companysidering the entire matter passed a final order dismissing the respondent from service w.e.f.
Deputy Commission of Police Traffic Department, Kolkata.
The C.O. was produced before the Ld.
26.11.2003 and was later served with a charge sheet on 1.6.2004.
The Appellate Authority after companysidering the entire matter, rejected the appeal vide its order dated 25.8.2005.
27.12.2004.
The Appellate Authority gave a personal hearing to the respondent on 28.2.2005.
WB24F 3050 from his house.
The department placed the respondent under suspension w.e.f.
After companysidering the reply, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from the Police Force w.e.f.
Investigation revealed that both the motor cycle and the private car were used during the companymission of the crime.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore, who was trying the criminal case levelled against the respondent and five other accused persons for companymitting the offence under 395/412 IPC read with Section 25 1 a /27/35 of the Arms Act, in the meanwhile found that the charges levelled against the accused persons including the respondent were number found proved and companysequently vide judgment dated 7.12.2007 acquitted all the accused persons.
Court of SDJM, Barrackpore and was remanded to P.O. till 29.11.03 on further production, the C.O. was remanded to jail custody and enlarged on Bail on 30.3.04.
During investigation he also recovered one private car.
At the time of the incident, he was working as a Sepoy on deputation in the Traffic Department of Kolkata Police.
On his arrest, he was produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barrackpore, and he was remanded to police custody till 28.11.2003 and then to judicial custody till 30.3.2004.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State of West Bengal along with two others, filed W.P.S.T. No.570 of 2009 before the Calcutta High Court.
During the investigation, he had also recovered one private car from the respondents residence.
Your written reply should reach within 7 seven days of the receipt of this charge.
Holding so, the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to reinstate the respondent in view of the acquittal order passed by the Sessions Court in the criminal case.
The respondent was working as a Sepoy in the 2nd Battalion of the Kolkata Armed Police.
N on 26.11.03 at 01.05 hrs.
The Tribunal after perusing the judgment of the Sessions Court acquitting the respondent and others took the view that the said judgment should have a bearing on the decision of the Enquiry Officer regarding disciplinary proceedings.
Further, it was also pointed out that the High Court has number properly appreciated Regulation 4 of Chapter 19 of the Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968, which was applicable to the respondent.
He had also recovered the motor cycle bearing No.
You were released from Dum Dum Central Jail on 1.4.2004.
A detailed reply was submitted by the respondent.
He prepared the arrest memo Exhibit No.
The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him.
After thorough investigation enquiry prima facie charge established against the C.O. and others.
On companyclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer after perusing the materials on record and after hearing the parties drew up his report on the enquiry on 10.11.2004.
You are hereby directed to state whether you plead guilty to the charges or want an open enquiry into the matter.
You being a member of the disciplined force, your involved in such type of heinous crime tarnished the image prestige of the Kolkata Police force in the estimation of the members of the public in large.
26.11.2003 F.N. are charged with gross misconduct unbecoming of a member of the Kolkata Police Force in that You were arrested on 26.11.2003 by Khardah P.S. for your direct companyplicity in companymission of dacoity vide Khardah P.S. Case No.383 dated 12.11.2003 u S. 392 IPC adding Section 395/412 CPC and 25/27 Arms Act by using a motor cycle T.V.S. Victor Blue companyoured bearing Regd No.24F/3050 You were produced before the Ld.
