The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not normally reappraise evidence in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and cannot substitute its own opinion in place of the disciplinary authority's opinion in matters of imposing punishment.

Order dated 05.04.2006 passed by the Group Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, (C.I.S.F.) Group Headquarter, Patna whereby punishment of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner, is under challenge in the present writ application.

2. Petitioner’s appeal against the said order dated 05.04.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone, Group Headquarter, Patna vide order dated 15.06.2006. His revision petition against these two orders also came to be dismissed by the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force vide his order dated 05.10.2006. These two orders dated 15.06.2006 and 05.10.2006 are also under challenge in the present writ application.

3. Petitioner was a constable in Central Industrial Security Force and at the relevant point of time he was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit, I.O.C., Barauni. A charge-sheet was served upon him vide Memo dated 10.09.2005 containing allegations of gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders of superiors, unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. There were altogether four charges levelled against him, which are being quoted here-in-below:-

“ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I

An act of gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders of the superior in that No. 932295994 Constable D.K. Yadav of C.I.S.F. Unit IOC Barauni refused to receive the Movement Order No. bZ&38014 @ dsvkSlqc @ vkbZvkslh @ ç’kklu@2005@574 fnukad 30-04-2005 alongwith its enclosure Appendix A issued by Dy. Commandant, CISF Unit IOC Barauni for proceeding on regular posting to CISF Unit BIOP Dep-5 from Inspector/Exe D.K. Mishra on 01.05.2005 at 1845 hrs. He also prevented L/Constable Muneshwari Devi from taking Movement Order dated 30.04.2005. This act on the part of the said No. 932295994 Constable D.K. Yadav amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders of the superior.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II An act prejudicial to good orders and discipline of an Armed Force of the Union in that No. 932295994 Constable D.K. Yadav of CISF Unit IOC Barauni did not report for duty at CISF Unit, BIOP Dep-5 and overstaying from joining time wef. 11.05.2005 to till date without any information or prior permission from the competent authority even ignoring the instructions issued to him vide call-up notice sent to him from time to time. Such act on the part of a member of a discipline Force amounts to gross misconduct and prejudicial to good orders and discipline of an Armed Force of the Union.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III Further act of gross indiscipline, misconduct and unbecoming of a member of a Discipline Force on the part of No. 932295994 Constable D.K. Yadav of CISF Unit IOC Barauni in that he forcibly entered into the Quarter No. E-68, CISF Site Colony on 13.05.2005 at 1430 hrs. and physically assaulted to Shri Kailash Singh, Father of L/Constable Muneshwari Devi, so brutally that the later was fell down on the ground/surface of the quarter unconsciously. This act on the part of the said No. 932295994 Constable D.K. Yadav amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a member of a discipline Force.”

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV

Continued act of gross misconduct, indiscipline, disobedience of lawful orders of the superior and unbecoming of a member of discipline Force on the part of No. 932295994 Constable D.K. Yadav of C.I.S.F. Unit, IOC Barauni in that he failed to improve upon his conduct despite being punished with 6 minor punishments for various delinquencies in the past and repeatedly involved in indiscipline activities thus proving himself to be incorrigible. Hence, his past conduct shall be taken into account while deciding the quantum of punishment in the current proceedings.”

4. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence in reply, denying the charges. A departmental proceeding accordingly was initiated under the provisions of Rule 36 (5) (a)/(