Nishita Mhatre, J. - (1.) THE appeal is directed against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'respondent') has been allowed and the disciplinary proceedings held against him and the punishment imposed have been set aside.
(2.) THE brief facts relating to the present case are as follows: "The respondent was employed with the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF') as a Deputy Commandant. On 15th January, 2002 while he was posted in the CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro, there was a scuffle between the CISF personnel and the villagers of Lewatand village. A constable of the CISF was abducted by the villagers. The respondent informed his superior officers and they directed him to rescue the abducted constable. The allegation against the respondent is that he did not ensure that the men deployed under him for the rescue operation acted in a restrained manner and instead, he permitted them to use physical force against the villagers. The CISF personnel as a result beat the villagers and damaged their property. This, according to the appellants, indicated that the respondent had failed "to perform his duties with full devotion" and that "he gave very poor account of his leadership and also lowered the image of the CISF." The appellants alleged that the respondent had "acted in a manner unbecoming to an officer of his status, rank and service of an arm force of the Union like CISF." These were the allegations levelled against the respondent in a charge -sheet issued to him on 5th June, 2002, almost six months after the alleged incident." The respondent replied to the charge -sheet denying all the allegations contained in it by his letter dated 29th January, 2003. An enquiry was conducted against the respondent in terms of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Both the presenting officer and the respondent submitted their respective contentions before the enquiry officer in writing. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority indicating that the charges had not been proved against the respondent. The enquiry officer was a Commandant of the CISF. The enquiry officer held based on the evidence led before him that it was not possible to fix the responsibility on the respondent regarding the lack of command and control of the CISF personnel and the failure to tackle the situation tactfully and methodically. The enquiry officer noted that the prosecution has examined those persons who had allegedly indulged in the assault and attack on the villagers as prosecution witnesses.
(3.) A note of disagreement by the disciplinary authority was furnished to the respondent along with the findings of the enquiry officer on 17th June, 2005. He was called upon to submit his representation to enable the disciplinary authority to take suitable action in the matter. Accordingly the respondent submitted his representation with respect to the note of disagreement on 20th August, 2005. The disciplinary authority concluded that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved.;