The High Court will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity. The quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority, and the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited to the applicability of the well-known principles known as “Wednesbury Principles.”

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated January 28, 2003 wherein the Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of removal from service of CISF with immediate effect and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated May 31, 2003 wherein the order of punishment against the petitioner was upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner is rejected.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force with effect from September 10, 1975 and was posted at FCI in Sindhri. On July 19, 1993, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable/GD. The petitioner was posted as Head Constable, CISF Unit, ONGC, Jorhat.

3. On June 24, 2002, the petitioner was detailed for escorting of field party, GP-33 with arms SMG (Carbine 9 mm) and 90 rounds lives rounds with three magazines. The escort party was divided into three phases and the petitioner was posted in the last phase. While the convoy of ONGC field party was returning forward base camp at 16.20 hours about 2 km from the Dhanshri Railway Station level crossing, the convoy was embraced and attacked by the suspected militants and started firing at random and in the meantime, the other two colleagues left the ambush-spot. On hearing, the first sound of firing and when the petitioner intended to get down from the vehicle, the petitioner fell down and got injury on his chest and started feeling giddiness due to low pressure and the petitioner had taken possession in a bush which was at the distance of hundred (100) metres from the site of militants’ attack and the petitioner became unconscious.

4. On the next morning i.e. on June 25, 2002, at the early morning, the petitioner by keeping the arms safe and secured left the spot and came to Diphu Railway Station through railway track and reported to the station at 7:30 hours and went to Police Station at 7:40 hours and informed the same to the Officer-in-Charge about the occurrence.

5. By a Memo dated July 7, 2002, the Commandant, being the Disciplinary Authority had issued a Memorandum along with Article of charges under Rule 36 of CISF Rule, 2001, on the allegation that the petitioner fled away from the scene of incident leaving his colleagues and ONGC employees on June 24, 2002 around 16:30 hours, when the convoy of the ONGC field party GP-33 was ambushed by the suspected militant group on their way back to base camp near Dhansiri railway crossing. The petitioner left his SMG Carbine 9 mm, 90 live rounds 9mm with three magazines unattended in the bushes near the place of incident though he was deployed on escort duty.

6. On receipt of the Memorandum along with Article of charges, the petitioner has submitted his reply stating that the story as mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 supra. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner and accordingly a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing Enquiry Officer.

7. The Enquiry Officer after examination of witnesses and on completion of enquiry, had submitted enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority had forwarded enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the said report and on January 28, 2003, the Disciplinary Authority had passed final order of punishment of removal from service of the petitioner.

8. Mr. Abdul Hamid Molla, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority have considered the situation which the petitioner had faced on the date of incident. He submits that since the very beginning, the petitioner had informed the authorities that when the petitioner had tried to get down from the cabin of the vehicle, the petitioner fell down on the ground and has sustained injury on his chest and started feeling giddiness as he was suffering from low pressure for t