JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the departmental proceeding and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority wherein punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner.

2. By a Memorandum dated 29th September, 1999, an Article of charges was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that on 21st September, 1999 at about 1900 hours, the petitioner being a Constable of Central Industrial Security Force Unit, NRL, Numaligarh had abused and assaulted Inspector (Executive), N.C. Gorian along with Constable Harender Kumar as a result of which Inspector N.C. Gorian sustained injury. On receipt of the Memorandum of Charge, the petitioner has submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him and accordingly the Disciplinary Authority had appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. During the preliminary hearing, the petitioner had objected for appointment of Shri KVK Sriram, Assistant Commandant as Enquiry Officer and requested to appoint another Enquiry Officer. Considering the request made by the petitioner, another Enquiry Officer namely, Jagdish Singh, Assistant Commandant, CISF unit was appointed, in place of Shri K.V.K Sriram.

3. The petitioner had participated in the proceeding and during the proceeding, nine witnesses and ten documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and the petitioner has adduced five witnesses as defence witness. On completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority and the said enquiry report was duly served to the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted his reply to the enquiry report. After considering the enquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order on 26th June, 2000 by imposing punishment of removal of the petitioner from service from the date of receipt of the order.

4. Being aggrieved with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and on 20th December, 2000, the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred a review application but a review application was also dismissed on 24th April, 2001.

5. Mr. K.B.S. Mahapatra, learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that there are several flaws in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry by adopting biasness and malafide attitude and the Enquiry Officer has not recorded the evidence in a proper manner.

6. Mr. Mahapatra submits that while conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had recorded the statement which had not been deposed by the witnesses during the enquiry and he did not record the statements which were against the prosecution. He submits that as per the list of witnesses, only five witnesses were cited but the Enquiry Officer had examined the witnesses who were not named in the list of witnesses and were also not present at the place of occurrence.

7. Mr. Mahapatra submits that the complainant was medically examined and x-ray was also done but as per the x-ray report, there is no mark of assault or injury and the complainant was normal. He submits that the Enquiry Officer has not allowed the petitioner to engage defence assistant during the course of enquiry in spite of request made by the petitioner.

8. Mr. Mahapatra submits that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the enquiry are contradictory to each other but the Enquiry Officer has not considered the contradictory statement made by the witnesses. He submits that as per the chargesheet only three documents have been relied by the prosecution but during the evidence the enquiry officer has exhibited altogether 10 documents which are not the listed documents of the chargesheet. He submits that the documents which were exhibited are neither the certified docume