The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the disciplinary proceeding to adhere to the principles of natural justice, the need for the enquiry officer to act judicially and impartially, and the limited scope of interference by a Writ Court in the exercise of discretion by the enquiry officer.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. A disciplinary proceeding, the charge-sheet issued therein, the report of the enquiry officer, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the order of the appellate authority as also the order of the revisional authority are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was a constable working with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on March 30, 2007 detailing three charges against the petitioner. In accordance with the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, a presenting officer and an enquiry officer were appointed. The petitioner filed reply to the charges. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. A right of cross-examination was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner wanted deferment of such right of cross-examination for three days. The same was disallowed.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon AIR 1985 SC 1121 (Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer. & Ors.) and (2009) 2 SCC 541 (Union of India & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Tandon) and submits that, the principles of natural justice are embodied in a rule or a disciplinary proceeding unless the applicability of such principles are' expressly excluded. In the present case, he submits that, neither the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 nor the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, excludes the applicability of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are applicable to the disciplinary proceeding at various stages including before the enquiry officer. A right of cross-examination is to be allowed to a delinquent. In the event, such right is denied, then the proceedings can be vitiated by reasons of, breach of principles of natural justice. In the present case, since the petitioner was denied a right, of cross-examination by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated.

4. He draws the attention of the Court to the nature of the charges levelled and the quantum of punishment imposed. He submits that, the quantum of punishment is not commensurate with the charges proved, assuming though not admitting that, the disciplinary proceeding was conducted, in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Court should intervene.

5. The respondents are represented.

6. As noted above, the petitioner was a Constable of the CISF. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. A charge-sheet dated March 30, 2007 was issued against the petitioner containing three articles of charges. The first charge relates to the disobedience of a lawful order given to the petitioner to proceed to a new place. Such disobedience and denial on the part of the petitioner was treated as tantamounting to gross indiscipline, misconduct and disobedience unbecoming of a disciplined member of a force. The second charge relates to disobedience of lawful order to receive and acknowledge the official communication of suspension. The same was also viewed as an act of indiscipline, misconduct and disobedience unbecoming of a disciplined member of a force. The third charge relates to the incorrigible habit of misconduct and indiscipline shown by the petitioner and the failure of the petitioner to improve himself. The charges were inquired into. The petitioner initially did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. He applied, by a letter dated September 5, 2007 to set aside the ex parte proceedings during the period from September 8, 2007 to September 21, 2007 and to recall the prosecution witnesses to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the same. This request was rejected by a writing of the enquiry officer. The enquiry report gives reasons as to why the charges against the petitioner stands proved. So far as cross-examination is concerned, it is not a case that, the petitioner was denied the right of cross-examination. It is a case where the petitioner although being given the right of cro