- (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 06.06.2001, the appellate order dated 26.09.2001 and the revisional order dated 24.07.2002.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, on 02.01.2001 in contemplation of a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was put under suspension. A Charge Memo dated 19.01.2001 was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that on 31.12.2000 he had beaten one civilian namely, Indradeo Yadav and created nuisance in public. An enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report dated 07.05.2001 was submitted. The petitioner was issued a second show cause notice on 12.05.2001 along with the copy of the enquiry report and the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 23rd May, 2001. The disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from service on 06.06.2001. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate authority rejected his appeal by order dated 26.09.2001. The revision preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by order dated 24.07.2002 and therefore, in these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed stating as under, "6. That Ex -CISF No. 901170017 Ex. Const. P.K. Nishad (petitioner) while posted at Area No. IV of CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad was placed under suspension w.e.f. 02.01.2001 as a Disciplinary proceeding against him was contemplated and he was issued with a charge memorandum under the then Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969 vide letter No. V15014/ (iii)/Disc/Adm. III/2001/300 dated 19.01.2001 (as contained in Annexure2 of the writ petition) for the charges: (i) Petitioner on 31.12.2000 at 1350 Hrs. assaulted one Indradeo Yadav, a civilian; (ii) On 31.12.2000 at about 10 a.m. came from A.P.C. to Sijua Hqrs for drawing salary and consumed alcohal and in a drunken state created nuisance in public; and (iii) Petitioner was earlier also punished for taking alcohal but inspite of that he did not mend himself. The aforesaid charge memorandum was served upon the petitioner on 23.01.2001 and he was directed to submit his written defence statement against the charge memorandum within ten days of receipt of the same. 7. That as the petitioner did not submit written defence statement within the stipulated period, Shri Sharad Kumar, Asstt. Commandant was detailed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 16/17.02.2001 to enquire into the charges. 8. That Enquiry Officer, during the Departmental Enquiry, recorded the statements of six Pws and one CW in presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to produce his defence witness and defence documents. But the petitioner did not produce any defence witness or documents in his defence. The defence statements of the petitioner was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 9. That on completion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority holding all the charges proved. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.05.2001 giving him the opportunity to submit his representation against the Enquiry officer's report, if any, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the same which he submitted on 25th May'2001. 10. That thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority taking all evidences and records into consideration, passed the final order imposing the penalty of "Removal from service  vide his final order No. V15014(iii)/Disc/Ad.III/2001/2112A dated 06.06.2001 (Annexure4 to the writ petition). 
(3.) HEARD the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the;