1 S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 819/98 Bhoma Ram Vs. The Union of India & Ors. Date of order : 08.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Vinay Jain for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Godara, for Mr. Vineet Kumar Mathur for the respondent. To assail validity of the order dated 14.2.1997 passed by Dy. Inspector General (West Zone), Central Industrial Security Force, Mumbai affirming the order dated 17/18.10.1996 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Group, Head quarter, New Delhi this petition for writ is preferred. In brief facts of the case are that the Dy. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Zawar Mines, Udaipur under memorandum dated 08.5.1996 charge sheeted the petitioner, a constable for remaining negligent while petrolling at magazine No. 1 to 6 and that resulted into theft of 930 non electric detonator. An allegations for getting relieved from duties without handing over physical charge to the reliever was also leveled upon the petitioner. Petitioner denied the allegations thus, under an order dated 24.5.1996, 2 the disciplinary authority appointed Shri A.S. Panesar, Dy. Commandant, Central Security Force Unit- Zawar as enquiry officer to make necessary enquiry into allegations. The enquiry officer after holding regular enquiry submitted its report to the disciplinary authority, a copy whereof was supplied to the petitioner on 10.9.1996. The petitioner by a representation dated 04.10.1996 submitted his comments relating to the findings given by the enquiry officer. As per the petitioner on 28/29.2.1996 he was having petrolling duties from 21 hours to 5 hours at magazine post in front side and during his duty hours, no incident of theft took place. He also stated that on 29.2.1996, he handed over physical charge to his reliever at 5 p.m., till then there was no information regarding alleged theft. The disciplinary authority after considering entire record of enquiry, report of the inquiry officer and also the comments submitted by the delinquent employee, held the petitioner guilty for the charges alleged, accordingly, a penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him. An appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 17/18.10.1996 also came to be rejected by Dy. Inspector General Central Industrial Force (West Zone) Mumbai, on 14.2.1997. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred. 3 The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the delinquent employee was posted at magazine No. 1 & 6 on 28/29.2.1996 and incident of the theft occured at magazine No. 3 & 4, as such, liability to secure safety of magazine concerned was not with him. I do not find any force in the arguments advanced. As a matter of fact, the petitioner himself throughout maintained that he was having duties for petrolling at magazine No. 1 to 6, however, the theft was not occured during his duty hours. It is only for the first time in the present petition for writ it is stated that petitioner was deputed for petrolling duties at magazine No. 1 & 6 only. The entire record of inquiry clearly establishes that as a matter of fact the petitioner and one another person constable Pokar Singh were deputed for petrolling duties at magazine No. 1 to 6. As a matter of fact the disciplinary authority quite tenaciously examined whatever evidence available on record and analyzed the same with all objectivity. It is evident from the order impugned and also from the enquiry report that the theft effected was of detonators from magazine after breaking seven locks. It is not in 4 dispute that from 21 hours to 5 hours the petitioner alongwith Pokar Singh was on petrolling duties and the information regarding theft was received by the competent authority at about 5.20 hours. The disciplinary authority rightly reached at the conclusion that in 20 minutes i.e. 5 hours to 5.20 hours, it was humanly impossible to break 7 locks and to make theft from magazine which normally remains under high security. An inference as such was rightly drawn on basis of all available evidence that the theft occured during duty hours of the petitioner and he was negligent in discharging his duties. I do not find any wrong with order passed by the disciplinary authority, as stood affirmed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, petition for writ is having no merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. ns.