Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force. A disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). On 7.3.1998, the petitioner was served with a memorandum alongwith the charges, namely, i] that the petitioner, while on duty as Duty Officer, took away some pieces of G.I. Sheet of different sizes from the plant unauthorisedly on 9.7.1997 in the Jeep without any valid documents. ii] that the petitioner tried to tamper the witness by threatening to murder. iii] that during the service, the petitioner was awarded penalties for various offences on eleven occasions, inspite of which, he did not improve his conduct.
(2.) The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter participated in the enquiry proceedings. Full opportunity was provided to the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice to which he replied. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply of the petitioner and the enquiry report and the evidence that was brought on the record, passed an order dated 30.3.99 imposing a penalty of dismissal from the service.
(3.) Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority partly allowed the appeal by its order dated 21.9.99. The order of dismissal was set aside and the petitioner was awarded a penalty of the reduction of the pay to the minimum stage in the time-scale of pay of a Sub-Inspector fora period of seven years. The appellate authority further directed that the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the order passed in appeal would be treated as "Dies-non" for all purposes. In pursuance of the appointment order, the petitioner joined and also preferred a revision which was rejected by the Revisional Authority by its order dated 9.10.2000.;