R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) BY Court Petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.12.2002, passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, CCL Kargali, District -Bokaro (respondent No. 4) dismissing him from service and the order dated 13.5.2003, passed in the appeal by the Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Zone, Patna (respondent No. 3), dismissing the appeal and also the order dated 26.11.2003, passed by the Director General, CISF (respondent No. 2), whereby only his punishment was reduced.
(2.) A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on seven charges. The Enquiry Officer found charges No. 1, II and VII to have been proved. Charge No. III, IV, V and VI were not found proved but the disciplinary authority disagreed with such finding of the Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Ultimately finding him guilty of all the charges, order of dismissal was passed on 7.12.2002. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The Revisional authority however reduced the punishment from dismissal to -"Reduction to the lower post of Sub -inspector(Exe) in the time scale of pay of Rs. 5500 -175 -9000.00 until he is found fit, after a period of three years from the date of re -joining of the petitioner to be restored to the higher post of Inspector (Exe)". Intervening period from the date of his dismissal from service to the date of joining on reinstatement was ordered to be treated as Dies -non. Mr. V.S.S. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in substance the charges are that while obeying the orders of the superiors, petitioner did not comply with the directions of the superior officers fully and that he exceeded his jurisdiction. Relying on Sec. 21 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (the Act for short), he submitted that certain protection of acts of officers and members of the Force is given under the Act. Me further submitted that the acts done by the petitioner were under the orders of his superior officer. He referred to the evidence of the Deputy Commandant -Shri Girish Tiwary, who was leading the team and under whose orders, the company was led by the petitioners, in which he said that charges leveled against the petitioner are not proper, rather the members of the force were entitled to reward. This witness justified the entire action. He also submitted that for the self same occurrence, on the one hand, petitioner has been rewarded and on the other hand, he has been punished. He further relied on the judgment reported in Ravi Dutt V/s. Union of India and Ors. and Union of India and Ors. V/s. J Ahmed, 1979 2 LLJ 14.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Union of India submitted that there was no procedural error and therefore this Court should not interfere with the findings of fact and the punishment awarded to the petitioner.;