WP(C) 3661/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr B.P. Chaliha, learne d counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Baruah, learned Central Govt. Counsel fo r the respondents. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petiti oner has challenged the legality of the order under Memo No. II/ESTT/SHQ-TZP/SSB /06-09 -7279-86 dated 11-6-2009 passed in exercise of powers conferred under Rul e 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1965 and Rule 27 of the CRPF, 1955, whereby and whereunder the petitioner here in has been imposed penalty of removal from the post of Sub-Inspector (ministeri al) of the 17th Bn SSB with effect from 11-06-2009(AN). The petitioner was appointed in Sashastra Seema Bal (for short SSB) in the year 1992 and while was discharging his duty as ASI (ministerial) posted at 17th BN S SB, Odalguri. He faced a departmental proceeding under the following Article of charges, which can be reproduced as under: ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I That the said ASI{Min} Tribanku Talukdar of 17th BN. SSB Bhairabkunda while func tioning as ASI(Min) and holding the charge of Got. Cashier of 17th BN. SSB Bgha irabkunda committed an act of grave misconduct/negligence and remissness in disc harge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the force. In that on 19-04-0 6 at about 1205 Hrs the Govt brief case (VIP) containing Govt. Cash, documents etc (as per details given below were stolen from his personal custody inside th e bank premises of SBI Udalguri, due to his sheer carelessness and remissness, t hus he has violated Rule 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949. 1. Govt. Cash meant for 9 Firms of Udalguri - Rs. 1,43,491/-. 2. DOCUMENTS a) Brief case (VIP) 18’’ (Cream Colour) - 1 (one) b) Stamp pad - 1 (one) c) Rubber stamp, DDO, 17th Bn. SSB - 1 (one) d) Calculator - 1 (one) e) Stapler - 1 (one) f) Firm payment voucher - 9 (nine) g) Blank Govt. Cheque Book - 1 (one) containing 32 from No. 099369 to 099400 ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II That the said ASI(Min) Tribanku Talukdar of 17th Bn SSB Bhairabkunda while funct ion as ASI(Min) and holding the charge of Govt. Cashier, 17th BN, SSB Bhairabku nda committed an act of grave misconduct/neglect/remissness in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the force in that he kept the Govt. Ca sh in an Almirah instead of at Cash Chest without permission of the Competent Au thority/DDO at his own will and he also did not open the Almirah to take the Gov t. Cash on 19-04-2006 in presence of the DDO. Thus he wilfully did not follow th e procedure to keep the Govt. Cash in proper custody and hence has violated Rule 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III That the said ASI(Min) Tribanku Talukdar of 17th Bn SSB Bhairabkunda while funct ion as ASI(Min) and holding the charge of Govt. Cashier, 17th BN, SSB Bhairabku nda committed an act of a grave misconduct/neglect/ remissness in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the force, in that he did not obtai n any written permission/approval from the Competent authority/DDO for making ca sh payment of Rs. 1,43,491 to 09(Nine) firms of Udalguri town, thus he has viola ted Rules 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 and also laid down standing instructions in thi s regard from time to time. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV That the said ASI(Min) Tribanku Talukdar of 17th Bn SSB Bhairabkunda while funct ion as ASI(Min) and performing the duties of Govt. Cashier on 19-04-2006 exhibi ted a lack of sense of devotion to duty and sheer negligence and remissness i n discharge of his duty in that he failed to obtain assistance of some other per son to assist him inside the bank premises. Thus he has violated Rules 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-V That the said ASI(Min) Tribanku Talukdar of 17th Bn SSB Bhairabkunda while funct ion as ASI(Min) and performing the duties of Govt. Cashier on 19-04-2006 exhibi ted a lack of sense of devotion to duty, farsightedness in that he carried an amount of Rs. 1,43,491/- to Govt Cash to SBI Udalguri which were meant for party payment instead of making payment to the parties, thus he has violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding. The departmental pro ceeding was conducted by one S.C. Katoch, Deputy Inspector General, Sector Head Quarters, Tezpur being appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Dy. Inspector General, Sector HQRS SSB, Tezpur by letter No. 11/Estt/SHQ-TZP/DE/ 233/TT/07 4220-21 dated 13-4-2009. The Inquiry Officer after due conduct of the proceeding, taking into consideration of the facts as well as the evidence both oral and documentary submitted an inquiry report (Annexure-IX). The Inquiry Offi cer recorded finding of assertion of all the charges brought against the petitio ner. The aforesaid inquiry report having been placed before the disciplinary aut hority a show cause was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitt ed his reply. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the reply so submitted by the petitioner, by the impugned order imposed the penalty of remova l as against the petitioner on and from 11-6-2009(AN) The petitioner being removed from service by the impugned order preferred a stat utory appeal before the Inspector General, the appellate authority. The aforesai d appeal came to be dismissed by order under Memo No. FG/III/BE(71)/PF/DBC/09/20 130-32 dated 10-08-2009 (Annexure-XIV). While dismissing the appeal the appellat e authority agreed to the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held the charges p roved. The petitioner thus being aggrieved by removal from service has approached this court by filing instant writ petition challenging its legality. Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned Sr. counsel while arguing submits that the some impor tant documents, like Annexure-1 and the Cash Book of the department concerned we re not considered in its proper perspective by the inquiring authority. It is al so submitted by Mr. Chaliha that the Inquiry Officer also failed to consider the fact of lying of the key of the Almirah with the permanent DDO, who was on medi cal leave at that time. Under the above facts, it is submitted by Mr. Chaliha, l eaned Sr. counsel that had the Annexure-1 and the Cash Book and other attending circumstances been considered by the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer could not have answered the Article of charges in affirmative. It is submitted by him that the order of termination is wrongly recorded as against the petitioner taki ng recourse to the inquiry report not based on evidence. In the circumstances Mr . Chaliha submits that the impugned order in law cannot survive. Mr. N. Baruah, leaned Central Govt. counsel also taking into consideration of th e facts and the inquiry report so submitted by the Inquiry Officer contends that some important materials were apparently not taken into consideration by the In quiry Officer while recording the finding in assertion. Moreover he concedes tha t had the document been taken into consideration particularly the Annexure-1 and Cash Book, there could not have been a finding on guilt as against the Article of charges from 1 to 5. It also appears to this court that Key having been lying with the permanent DDO and he having not been examined as one of the witness so me defects persist in the inquiry conducted as against the petitioner. Mr. Chaliha, learned Sr. counsel, therefore taking into consideration of the non-consideration of the materials documents and examination of the DDO sub mits to this court that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and remande d the matter back to the appropriate authority to start a fresh inquiry against the petitioner. This submission advanced by Mr. Chaliha, learned Sr. counsel is also subscribed by Mr. N. Baruah, learned CGC. Taking note of the facts appearing in the face of the record and the sub missions advanced by the counsel of either party, it is thought appropriate to s end back the matter to the respondent authority(s) to start a denovo inquiry aga inst the petitioner in respect of the Article of Charges (i) to (v). Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11-06-2009 is set aside and quashe d. The respondent authority is directed to start a denovo inquiry against the pe titioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 4(four) m onths from the date of receipt of this order. With the above direction this writ petition stands disposed of.