The main legal point established is that the application of Rule 8(a) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 requires the delinquent member to be granted reasonable opportunity to present their case with defense assistance.

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

2. The petitioner was an ex-Head Constable Driver of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He seeks quashing of order of dismissal from service, dated 18.7.2001 (Annexure-2), Appellate Order, dated 27.3.2002 (Annexure-3), order dated 21.1.2003 (Annexure-4) and order dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure-4) passed by the superior authorities.

3. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for his alleged act of misconduct while he was posted as ex-Head Constable Driver at CISF Unit in Gaya. A copy of charge memo dated 26.9.2000 is at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The allegation was that on 18.8.2000 at 9.15 PM he abused In-charge Officer and other officials in the state of intoxication. He was also charged for banging the family house of one of the officials by his legs. In course of inquiry, the petitioner sought for some documents, which according to the respondents was duly supplied vide letter No. 1206 dated 21.10.2000. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge on 2.11.2000 denying the charges. One Shri S.K. Mishra, Inspector, CISF, Phulwarisharif Unit was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct the departmental enquiry vide letter dated 27/29.11.2000. On 12.2.2001, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer for preliminary hearing, in course of which he requested for leave to bring consent letter from members of the Force for assisting him during the enquiry. The Inquiry Officer granted ten days time for bringing the consent letter. The next date in the inquiry was 28.2.2001. The charged official did not intimate the name of assistance nor did he submit the consent letter and the matter was again adjourned to 8.3.2001. On 8.3.2001, the charged official did not turn up for enquiry and the matter was adjourned to 14.3.2001. On 14.3.2001, a notice was issued to the delinquent Chet Ram fixing the enquiry on day to day basis w.e.f. 26.3.2001. On 24.3.2001, acknowledgment copy of enquiry notice served through registered letter on his home address, was received. On 26.3.2001, the charged official appeared and one witness was examined. On 27.3.2001 two more witnesses were examined and thereafter the proceeding also took place on 28.3.2001 and 29.3.2001. After conclusion of the inquiry report, the finding of guilt was recorded by the Inquiry officer. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority for his response. The petitioner submitted his second show cause in support of his case. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation, awarded sentence of dismissal. An appeal and revision filed by the petitioner too was dismissed.

4. The petitioner challenged the impugned proceeding on the ground that he did not get reasonable opportunity to place his case before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submits that rule 8(a) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 permits the enrolled member of the Force so charged to present his case with the assistance of any other member of the Force posted at the place of inquiry. The delinquent will give three choices for his defence assistance and the controlling officer will depute anyone of the three indicated by him.

5. The petitioner's case is that he was unable to take benefit of section 8(a) of the Rules as he was not granted leave despite his application to obtain consent from such members of the Force who was willing to assist him in the departmental enquiry.

6. Counsel for the Union submits that ten days time was granted to the petitioner to produce such consent letter but the petitioner neither submitted any name nor brought any consent letter even till 28.2.2001. On the other hand, the petitioner submits that there is no specific order granting him leave to produce consent letter. Learned counsel in reply submits that grant of ten days time to bring co