JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant by a charge sheet dated 10.10.2013. The sole charge was that during posting at the New Delhi Metro Station on 01.10.2013 at about 09.59 hours he had fought with the HC/GD-AC Coy which caused breach of peace and tarnished the image of the Force and showed a grave negligence towards duty, indiscipline and misconduct. The appellant replied to the chargesheet and an enquiry was conducted under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the CISF Rules). In the midst thereof, he was suspended vide memo dated 01.10.2013. He duly participated in the enquiry and upon considering the deposition of four prosecution witnesses and CCTV footage, the enquiry officer (hereinafter referred to as EO) submitted a report arriving at a finding that the charge against the appellant stands proved. Thereafter he filed a reply to the said enquiry report and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority (hereinafter referred to as DA) by an order dated 28.03.2014 imposed the punishment of removable from service. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred a statutory appeal but the Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as AA) dismissed the same and as such the appellant was constrained to approach this Court challenging inter alia the orders passed by the DA and the AA.

2. Mr. K.B.S. Mahapatra, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned charge was allegedly proved against the appellant on the rudiments of contradictory depositions of the prosecution witnesses. From the order impugned it would be explicit that only upon viewing the CCTV footage, the learned Single Judge arrived at finding that the appellant in uniform had manhandled another person in plain clothes and had acted in an aggressive manner. Such CCTV footage does not portray the entire episode and does not tally with the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Upon arriving at a, prima facie, finding that appellant entered into an altercation with two apparent civilians, who provoked the appellant, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 02.03.2015 staying the order of punishment and thereafter the appellant was allowed to resume his duties but was placed under suspension.

3. He argues that neither the EO nor the DA granted any weightage to the fact that the commuter, who was not in uniform, first raised this hand and then there was a scuffle between the commuter and the appellant. It ought to have been appreciated that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment and that there was a provocation. The finding that the appellant had fought with the commuter and had thus tarnished the image of the force, is not corroborated by the evidence of record and there is no concreate evidence to link the appellant with any act that he had on his own assaulted the HC/GD-AC Coy even after knowing that the said person was an officer of CISF.

4. Mr. Mahapatra argues that the absence of formation of any opinion on the part of the DA that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of the imputation of misconduct before appointing an EO falls foul of the provisions of Rule 36 of the CISF Rules. A perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the DA had arrived at a finding of guilt and had prejudged the appellant at the stage of charge sheet prior to grant of an opportunity to him to respond to the same. The respondents have proceeded with a preconceived notion that the appellant is guilty of the charge and such conclusion as regards the guilt of the appellant at the stage of issuance of the charge sheet, reflects the biased mind of the DA. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited versus Union of India and Others, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427.

5. He argues that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is thoroughly disproportionate. There is no s