JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner’s grievance against the reprehensible acts of the respondents as claimed to be prejudicial by the petitioner for nearly two decades has a chequered history which had been dealt by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP 25864(W) of 2007 extensively vide order dated December 9, 2016 upon exhaustive consideration of the submissions rendered on behalf of both the Learned Advocates representing the petitioner as well as the respondents.

2. The aforesaid order had been annexed with the instant writ petition to the absolute knowledge of both the petitioner as well as the respondents and a reiteration of the dispute, in question, from its inception which had been perused by this Court in minute details and a repetition of the facts and circumstances leading to the initiation of the departmental proceedings subsequent events and consequent removal from service repetitive in nature will be in voluminous replication and, therefore, prudently not stated here except for strict reference.

3. The following paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench is replicated as follows:-

“………

21. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after perusing the records and also considering the citations (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Shobha Sinha, Dev Singh and Kartick Chandra Ghosh (supra) relied on by Mr. Saha Roy I find that despite repeated demand in writing by the petitioner to furnish the relevant records and also to produce the witnesses the disciplinary authority did not take any steps to supply those documents as well as preliminary report to the petitioner or to produce those witnesses during the proceedings although the relevant rule of CISF clearly provides for furnishing document as sought for.

22. It is also evident from the records that in the FIR only the name is mentioned not the constable number.

23. It is also cannot be ignored by the Court that in the FIR the person identified with yellow T-shirt without mentioning the constable number. It is also surprising that against the initial punishment imposed by respondent no.4 Group Commandant CISF the petitioner preferred appeal but curiously the appellate authority instead of disposing the appeal returned the same and by the order dated 20th February, 2007 suo-moto revision was made thereby enhancing the punishment from reduction of salary in minimum scale to dismissal from service. Challenging the said suomoto revision order of removal petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no.2 but removal order was confirmed by the respondent no.2. Admittedly enhancement of punishment to the removal from the service passed in suo-moto revision petition is patently illegal and shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

24. I also cannot ignore the fact that without complying the procedural aspects as laid down in CISF Act and Rules the authority vindictively, arbitrarily suomoto in revision application imposed the extreme harsh punishment like dismissal from service. It is admittedly shockingly disproportionate . The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions repeatedly held that when the punishment is harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the charges then the Court has power to interfere in the proceedings. I am however mindful of the scope of judicial scrutiny of disciplinary proceedings is limited to the extent of finding out whether the delinquent was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself or whether the authority followed the appropriate service rules and/or regulations while proceeding against the delinquent thereby imposing final order of punishment like dismissal from service. Hence the action taken is exceptional and thus deserves interference by the Court.

25. Since it is evident that without supplying the documents and without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and without following ap