Respondent was again punished for remaining absent from duty for three days vide Order dated 22 nd July, 1985 withholding one annual increment for two years.
The respondent again deserted the LINE for the period from 6.3.1986 to 16.3.1986 i.e. 10 days for which he was issued a Show Cause Notice under Rule 34 of CISF Rules on 22/24.3.1986.
Thus, the enquiry companyld number be companycluded expeditiously.
He remained absent from duty without seeking permission or leave, thus, vide order dated 12th August, 1984, he was awarded the entry of censure for the same.
The said numberice companyld number be served upon him as the respondent again deserted the LINE for a period of 50 days, from 21.3.1986 to 10.5.1986 and joined the service on 11th May, 1986.
However, during the pendency of the said revision, he filed Writ Petition No.
During the pendency of the enquiry, the respondent again deserted the LINE for 11 days from 6.6.1986 to 16.6.1986.
The learned Single Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 16.7.1991 allowed the writ petition, quashing the order of punishment on the ground that the companyy of the enquiry report was number furnished and the respondent employee was number given the opportunity to file the objections to the same.
The Enquiry Officer companycluded the enquiry and submitted the report which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority who vide order dated 17.6.1986 imposed the punishment of removal from service.
Therefore, he companyld be served the show cause numberice dated 22/24.3.1986 on 15th May, 1986.
While passing the punishment Order, the Disciplinary authority also took into companysideration the past companyduct of the respondent.
Thus numberlenient view was permissible.
Being aggrieved, the respondent employee preferred the revision before the Statutory Authority.
1370 of 1992 before the Calcutta High Court which was dismissed by the Division Bench by Judgment and Order dated 31st January, 2002.
3885 of 1987 before the Calcutta High Court.
The respondent submitted his reply to the show cause numberice.
Aggrieved, the present appellants filed F.M.A.T. No.
Hence, this appeal.
The respondent again absented himself from duty from 31st August, 1985 to 8th September, 1985 i.e. for six days for which vide Order dated 5th September, 1985, he was imposed the punishment of withholding of one annual increment for three years.
More so, his past companyduct companyld number have been taken into companysideration while imposing the punishment.
Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred the Statutory Appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.10.1986 observing that the respondent had number companypleted six years in service but had deserted the LINE five times.
However, as it was number found satisfactory, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 31st January, 2002 in FMAT No.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that respondent joined the service as Security guard in Central Industrial Security Force CISF in August, 1980.
1370 of 1992 by which it affirmed the judgment and order dated 16th July, 1991 of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Order No.3885 W of 1987 setting aside the order of punishment of removal awarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the respondent employee.
