- (1.) The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated November 24, 2006 is aggrieved by an order dated May 31, 2006 (at p.88) issued by the Deputy Inspector General (Pers), Central Industrial Security Force inflicting on him the penalty of "Withholding of one increment for three years without cumulative effect.By issuing a charge-sheet dated June 5, 2002 (at p.29) the Deputy Inspector General (Pers/Hqrs) initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner who was working as a Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro. The charge was as follows: That Shri GC Bilarwan while posted and functioning as DC in CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro committed a gross misconduct in that when there was a scuffle between CISF personnel and the villagers of Lewatand village on 15.01.2002 which finally led to the abduction of Constable V.S. Rai by the villagers, he did not appreciate the ground reality, in right prospective, nor did he carry out the rescue operation methodically and tactfully instead, he left the CISF personnel free to carry out the rescue operation even by using physical force. As a result, the CISF personnel not only beat up the villagers but also damaged their houses and house hold articles. Thus, Shri G.C. Bilarwan, DC failed to perform his duties with full devotion and gave very poor account of his leadership and also lowered the image of the CISF. Shri G.C. Bilarwan, DC also and in a manner unbecoming of an officer of his status, rank and service of an Armed Force of the Union like CISF.
(2.) After conclusion of the inquiry held in terms of the provisions of r. 14 of the Central Civil Service's (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which were applicable to the case, the Inquiring Authority prepared a report dated March 24, 2005 (at p.49) containing his findings that the charge was not proved and forwarded the report with all the records in terms of the provisions of sub-r.(23) of r.14 to the Disciplinary Authority.
(3.) The Disciplinary Authority who was required to take action on the report in terms of r. 15 issued a letter dated June 17, 2005 (at p.70) forwarding thereunder a copy of the report and the reasons for which he was unable to agree with the Inquiring Authority. The petitioner asked to make representation, if any, submitted a detailed representation dated August 20, 2005 (at p.74) contending why the Disciplinary Authority should not disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority.;