JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The challenge in the instant proceeding is against the order dated 06.10.2003 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, ONGC, Sibsagar imposing the penalty of removal from service on the Petitioner as a disciplinary measure, as well as the order dated 23.01.2004 of the Deputy Inspector General (Central Industrial Security Force), Nazira, Sibsagar dismissing his departmental appeal preferred against the same. 2. I have heard Mrs. K. Deka, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 3. Briefly stated the pleaded case of the Petitioner is that while he was posted as a Constable at Lakwa Sector, CISF Unit, ONGC, Nazira, he was placed under suspension on 29.06.2003 in connection with an incident that had occurred on the previous day, i.e. on 28.06.2003 at about 1855 hours, which witnessed an accidental firing from his service rifle, resulting in the death of Constable N.K. Singh who succumbed to the injuries sustained thereby. In connection therewith, he was served with a Memorandum of Charges on 04.07.2003 carrying the following imputation- That gross misconduct, carelessness in handling weapon and violation of standing order on the part of No. 952331674 Constable Ambi Ram Das of Lakwa Sector, CISF Unit, ONGC Nazira in that on 28.06.2003 at about 1855 hrs. he opened one round fire from his service rifle 7.62 mm SLR Butt No. 463 Regd. No. 63348 while getting ready for duty in the barrack to proceed for patrolling duty causing injury on the upper side of the left chest of No. 964651298 Constable Ngangban Kunje Singh who was sitting on the cot in the barrack and subsequently expired at 2130 hrs. in ONGC Hospital, Sivsagar, Assam. 4. He submitted his written reply on 16.07.2003 contending inter alia, that on 28.06.2003 he had been detailed for patrol duty at GGS VIII out post of Lakwa Sector from 1900 hrs to 0530 hrs. on 24.06.2003 and that when he was getting ready for the duty in the barrack, he fitted the loaded magazine in his SLR, which thereafter without his knowledge, got accidentally fired, as a result whereof, the deceased who was sitting on his bed in the barrack, got injured thereby and later was declared dead at the ONGC Hospital, Sibsagar. on 24.06.2003 and that when he was getting ready for the duty in the barrack, he fitted the loaded magazine in his SLR, which thereafter without his knowledge, got accidentally fired, as a result whereof, the deceased who was sitting on his bed in the barrack, got injured thereby and later was declared dead at the ONGC Hospital, Sibsagar. He denied to have been careless in handling the weapon and asserted that the firing had been purely unintentional, without his contribution in any manner whatsoever. He also contended that prior to the incident he had undergone one week's weapon handling course from 13.06.2003 to 20.06.2003 and that he had neither an adequate experience in handling such weapon nor was he adapted thereto. 5. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the Petitioner, appointed an Enquiry Officer who on the conclusion of the inquiry, submitted his report on 23.08.2003 holding the charge to be proved. A copy of the inquiry report was served on the Petitioner, to which he submitted his representation and eventually by the impugned order dated 06.10.2003 the penalty of removal was imposed. His statutory appeal having failed, he is before this Court. 6. The Respondents in their affidavit have asserted that the departmental inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with procedure prescribed by Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Rules) for his misconduct and careless act leading to the death of his colleague in service. According to them, the Petitioner being a member of the disciplined force was duty bound to be cautiously careful in the handling of the service rifle allotted to him and that he having failed to do so, was accordingly charged for misconduct and gross dereliction of duty. They have maintained that the proceedings had been conducted in due manner, in which the Petitioner had been accorded all reasonable opportunities and having regard to the gravity of the charge, the penalty of removal from service was imposed. While accepting that in connection with the same incident, a criminal case had also been lodged against the Petitioner, the answering Respondents have pleaded that the pendency or the outcome thereof, has no overall bearing on the departmental proceeding. While accepting that in connection with the same incident, a criminal case had also been lodged against the Petitioner, the answering Respondents have pleaded that the pendency or the outcome thereof, has no overall bearing on the departmental proceeding. The impugned orders having been passed on correct assessment of the evidence recorded in the disciplinary proceeding, the same are justified in law and do not warrant any interference therewith. 7. The only argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, is that on the face of the record, the death of Constable N.K. Singh, though an extremely unfortunate incident, was not caused by any deliberate or negligent act of the Petitioner. As his service rifle at the relevant time got fired without any intention or conscious act of his, he could not be held to be responsible for the accident. It has been submitted that as the Petitioner was inadequately trained at that point of time to handle the service rifle, he by no means could be said to be the guilty of any misconduct, having regard to the prevailing facts and circumstances under which it got fired. 8. It is submitted at the Bar that the Central Industrial Security Force for the members of its service follow the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Conduct Rules) to determine as to whether any act or omission involved amounts to a misconduct, for which a penalty major or minor can be imposed under the Rules. Having regard to the charge that had been framed against the Petitioner, it appears that the misconduct on his part has been construed from his failure to maintain devotion to duty, he having violated the standing orders prescribed for handling service arms. 9. The stand of the Petitioner in his written reply to the memorandum of charges, in this regard ought to be noticed at this stage. That it is also admitted fact that at about 1855 hrs. when I was getting ready for mounting duty in the barrack, I accordingly put on all uniform took my said rifle and fitted the loaded magazine in the rifle. That it is also admitted fact that at about 1855 hrs. when I was getting ready for mounting duty in the barrack, I accordingly put on all uniform took my said rifle and fitted the loaded magazine in the rifle. That thereafter when I was just thinking to proceed for patrolling duty all of a sudden without my knowledge and accidentally one round was come out and/or fired from my said rifle, which consequently hited No. 964651298 constable N.G.K. Singh who was sitting on his bed in the barrack and later on he was declared dead by the Doctor of ONGC Hospital, Sivasagar. 10. It would be apparent from the above extract that at the point of time when his service rifle got fired, it was in his hand fitted with loaded magazine. This appears to be opposed to his plea in his defence statement later made in the departmental proceeding that at the time when the rifle got fired, the same had remained laid on his bed. Noticeably, however at that point of time, the firearm was fitted with charged magazine. A bare reading of the Enquiry Officer's report, however discloses that there was no eye witness to the incident. The fact that at that point of time, the firearm involved had been allotted to the Petitioner and was in his custody and that in the incident the shot fired therefrom had hit constable N.K. Singh who eventually succumbed to the injuries is not in dispute. The witnesses of the Disciplinary Authority have in one tone proved the incident and the factum of death of constable N.K. Singh. 11. The Enquiry Officer in his report, while noticing the stand of the Petitioner that at the relevant time the service rifle had been lying on his bed made a thorough analysis of the situations, in which it could have got fired namely:- (1) Feeding in the chamber. (2) Bringing safety catch to "R" position. (3) Operation of the trigger. And came to the ultimate conclusion that the service rifle got fired due to gross negligence and carelessness in handling of the same by the Petitioner in violation of the standing order of "inspecting and clearing the weapon before and after duty. 12. (2) Bringing safety catch to "R" position. (3) Operation of the trigger. And came to the ultimate conclusion that the service rifle got fired due to gross negligence and carelessness in handling of the same by the Petitioner in violation of the standing order of "inspecting and clearing the weapon before and after duty. 12. The Disciplinary Authority on an exhaustive scrutiny of the evidence on record, as well as the findings of the Inquiry Officer was of the view that the charge has been proved. He further concluded that the Petitioner having completed his basic training including training in handling the weapon concerned in mess camp of ONGC, Nazira immediately before his detailment at the Unit to which he was attached, he was expected to handle his allotted service rifle carefully and that inept in handling thereof had caused the death of his colleague. 13. In the attending facts and circumstances, the disciplinary authority was of the opinion that the Petitioner's retention in service would be a liability to the Force. The departmental appellate authority as the order passed by it reveals also examined each and every ground taken up by the Petitioner in appeal and negated the same with reference to the materials on record and eventually endorsed the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as well as the disciplinary authority. 14. True that there is no eye witness to the incident. However, having regard to the admitted facts and the inconsistent pleas taken by the Petitioner, vis-a-vis his service rifle at the point of time when it got fired, considered together with the analysis made by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the essential requisites for such a firearm to get activated, this Court does not feel persuaded to sustain the plea raised on his behalf. Having regard to the nature of the weapon wielded by the Petitioner and the Force to which he belonged at the relevant point of time, it was expected of him to be extra vigilant and careful, more particularly, when the room in which he was sitted, was occupied by others. The vacillating stand of the Petitioner with regard to the location of the firearm at the relevant point of time also cannot lose sight of. The vacillating stand of the Petitioner with regard to the location of the firearm at the relevant point of time also cannot lose sight of. The charge being of carelessness in handling a firearm by a member of disciplined force who had undergone a training to do so in all conceivable fact situations, this Court having regard to the materials on record does not feel inclined to uphold the plea on behalf of the Petitioner. The view taken by the departmental authorities on the basis of the evidence is a plausible one. The fact that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial on the same charge, having regard to the difference in the nature of the two proceedings and the rigour of proof prescribed therefore in the opinion of this Court does not have any decisive bearing on the ultimate orders passed in the disciplinary proceeding against him. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with. The petition stands rejected. No costs. Petition dismissed.