AMRITA SINHA,J. - (1.) The petitioner was a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF for short). Pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him he was placed under suspension. The petitioner was served with the memorandum of charges followed by the article of charge. Copy of the documents and the list of witnesses relied upon by the employer was provided to him. A Presenting officer and an Inquiry Officer were appointed. A regular disciplinary proceeding was held. The Presenting officer submitted that the petitioner ought to get the benefit of doubt. The Inquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary authority after going through the documents and upon perusal of the depositions came to the conclusion that the charged official was guilty of the charges imposed upon him. He was imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by three stages in the revised pay band and grade pay for a period of three years with immediate effect. He would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and the same would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
(2.) The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of penalty and the Appellate Authority opined that there is no reason to interfere with the order of punishment and rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the order of the Appellate Authority.
(3.) The Inspector General conducted a suo motu review of the disciplinary proceeding and invoked the provision of Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and proposed to enhance the penalty to "dismissal from service". The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his representation against the proposed punishment. On consideration of the representation made by the petitioner the Inspector General passed the order of penalty of dismissal from service.;