Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the Order dated 20 -7 -2002, as contained in Memo No. 1085 issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General, CISF, BSL, Bokaro by which penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 8550/ - to Rs. 8275/ - in the time scale of pay for a period of two years in the pay scale of Rs. 8000 -275 -13500/ - with immediate effect and further the petitioner shall not be entitled to any increment during the period of reduction and the same shall have effect of postponing his future increment of pay. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 21 -1 -2003, as contained in Memo No. 309 passed by the Inspector General, CISF, East Sector Headquarter, Patna by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20 -7 -2002 has been rejected and revisional order 31 -7 -2003 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner while holding the post of Inspector at BSL Unit at Bokaro was served with a memorandum of charge for allegation of his work as prejudicial to good order and discipline as he failed to restrain CISF Personnel from entering into Lewatand village which resulted in scuffle between Lewatand villagers and CISF personnel of CISF Unit BSL Bokaro. Inaction on the part of the petitioner tarnished the image of CISF in the eyes of public. Besides instead of controlling CISF personnel from indulging in un -desired acts, he instigated them to do so. The above acts on the part of the petitioner amounts to gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and unbecoming of a good member of the Armed Force. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the incident took place a Court of inquiry was conducted in which the committee had reached to the conclusion that it is not only the petitioner, rather other CISF personnel were also involved and in order to save the life of one of the CISF personnels, the things had happened.
(3.) AFTER conclusion of court of inquiry, a memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner with a direction to appear before the Inquiry Officer to face the inquiry. The petitioner accordingly appeared before the Inquiry Officer and defended his case. Before the Inquiry Officer altogether ten witnesses have been examined and the documents have also been produced. On the basis of the material produced before the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer had submitted the report wherein according to the petitioner charge has not found to be proved.;