VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was working as Naik in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as C.I.S.F. for short) and on 25.2.1994 he was on duty vide Annexure 1. The petitioner had a brilliant career in service which will be evident from Annexure 2. At the relevant time in the month of July, 1996 the petitioner was deputed on duty at New Delhi for a short period and he was suspended by the Assistant Commandant on I.S. duty vide Annexure 3 and subsequently that order was revoked vide Annexure 3/1. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for the following charges : - -Article of Charge -I "An act of gross misconduct and indiscipline in that No. 944430040 Naik B.N. Jha of CISF Unit FCI Sindary while deployed in election duty/IS duty in coy No. 204 in Delhi, abused and threatened to No. 7014117 ASI/Exe R.C. Sharma using unparliamentarily language in dining hall of CISF Unit BTPS Badarpur at about 21.00 hrs on 19.7.1996 after consuming alcohol." Article of Charge -II "An act of gross misconduct and indiscipline in that No. 944430040 Naik B.N. Jha of CISF Unit FCI Sindary, while deployed in election duty/IS duty in coy No. 204 in Delhi, manhandled/ assaulted No. 7014117 ASI/Exe R.C. Sharma using his fist at about 22.30 hrs on 19.7.1996 near Quarter Guard of CISF Unit BTPS Badarpur."
(2.) THE matter was inquired by the Sub -Inspector who found the charges not proved, a copy of the enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner vide Annexure 5 to this writ application with a suggestion that he may file a representation/submission to the Commandant. It appears that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the inquiry authority and awarded punishment for payment of lower pay scale for a period of one year and for the date of passing of the order dated 29.7.1998 vide Annexure 6 then he was also advised by that order that he may file appeal before DIG and accordingly he filed an appeal before the DIG, the appellate authority. The appellant was dealt with under Rule 47 of the CISF Rules for above charges and appellate authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service vide Annexure 7. Thereafter it appears that after considering the cause shown by the petitioner the appellate authority passed the order modifying the proposed punishment of "Dismissal from service" that of "Removal from service with immediate effect" vide Annexure 8. Then it transpires that the petitioner filed a revision before the IG of the CISF, Eastern Sector. Head Quarters Patna and the IG vide Annexure 10 rejected the representation being devoid of merit and confirmed the order of appellant authority. The question that has been raised in this writ is whether in face of the finding given by the inquiry officer that the charges were not proved, the respondent should have dropped the proceeding and should have passed the impugned orders and whether the extreme penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to guilt of the offence and whether in deciding the quantum of the punishment the past service of the petitioner could have been taken into consideration and also whether there was any legal evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner.
(3.) THE basic question is whether the Disciplinary Authority could have disagree with the findings of the Enquiring Officer. As stated above, the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner from the charges. Rule 34(9) of the Central Industrial Security Force, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) reads as follows : "The disciplinary authority shall, if it is not the Inquiry Authority referred to above, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge.";