It was alleged that at that point of time the appellant was found absent from his duty and he came to his duty point about 25 minutes after the aforesaid incident.
This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1986, passed by the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of his removal from service.
In the enquiry the appellant took the stand that the duty area was a jungle area with thick bushes and since a large number of persons had entered the Plant and the appellant and the Security Guard with him were unarmed and, therefore, he asked the Security Guard to keep an eye on the situation and he himself rushed to the nearest telephone wherefrom he reported the incident to the Shift Incharge and the Control Room whereafter the criminals were apprehended and the companyl was seized from them.
However, the enquiry officer found the appellant guilty of the said charge in pursuance of which the disciplinary authority after companysidering the findings of the enquiry officer awarded the penalty of removal from service with effect from 24.4.1984.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed on 13.9.1984 against which the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi which was also dismissed by the impugned order against which this appeal has been directed.
He was promoted as Head Constable in September, 1981.
The appellant was appointed as Security Guard on 16.12.1970 in the Central Industrial Security Force.
The Crime Branch Staff seized 45 gunny bags filled with companyl from the said intraders.
In January, 1983 the appellant was posted as Head Security Guard in the C.I.S.F. Unit Rourkela Steel Plant.
Leave granted.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
On 25.1.1983 when the appellant was on duty in B shift from 1.00 PM to 9.00 PM at C post in the area known as N.R. Gate alongwith a Security Guard, a large number of persons totalling about 109 entered inside the Plant at about 7.45 PM and were found removing companyl from the M.C.D. area which was the duty point of the appellant.
Consequently, the appellant was charge sheeted for misconduct and gross negligence of duty and an enquiry against him was held.
