AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, a cook in the rank of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was served with a chargesheet dated 16.10.1998 containing the following charges : ARTICLE OF CHARGE -I No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar (U/S) of A Coy CISF Unit BSL Bokaro residing in Qtr. No. 1497 of Sector XI -C alongwith his family quarrelled with No. 89224004 Const. Harender Singh and his wife who are residing in Qtr. No. 1495 of Sector XI -C on 26.9.1998 in between 1950 hrs. to 2020 hrs. Thus he has disturbed the peace and tranquility of the housing colony. This said act on the part of cook Kamlesh Kumar amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline. ARTICLE OF CHARGE -II No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar (U/S) of A Coy CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro misbehaved and manhandled Smt. Sunita Devi W/O Const. Harender Singh at about 2000 hrs on 26.9.98. The Act on the part of the Cook Kamlesh Kumar amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline. ARTICLE OF CHARGE -III No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar (U/S) of "A" Coy CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro refused to vacate the quarter No. 1497 allotted to him in Sector -C and thus failed to carry out the lawful orders of the competent authority. The said act on the part of the Cook Kamlesh Kumar amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders. ARTICLE OF CHARGE -IV No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar (U/S) of A Coy CISF Unit. BSL Bokaro failed to improve his conduct inspite of awarding several punishments and continued to commit Act of misconduct and indiscipline." After holding enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and ultimately the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority challenging the order of his removal from service was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court bearing CWJC No. 2800/99. As it appears from Annexure -8, i.e. the order dated 28.3.2001 passed by this Court that the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to quantum of punishment contending inter alia (a) that the punishment of dismissed from service was disproportionate to the charges and (b) that the punishnient was inflicted twice for the same charge No. 3. This Court by aforesaid order remitted the matter back to the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force to determine as to whether the punishment inflicted was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and as to whether the petitioner was earlier punished for the same set of charge No. 3 or not?
(3.) PURSUANT thereto the Inspector General, CISF, passed an order on 21.9.2001 contained in Annexure -9 to the present writ application, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which is under challenge in this application.;