Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner was enrolled in the CISF on 8.5.1990 and during the tenure of his service was posted with IOC (Mathura) w.e.f. 14.6.2002. The petitioner sustained certain injuries in November 2003 and was advised lighter duties. The petitioner was, thus, posted on duty at the Watch Tower No. 14.

2. The date of the incident which resulted in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is dated 5.6.2004 when the petitioner was posted on the said duty tower between 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The petitioner claimed that he received an anonymous call at about 7:50 a.m. on the said date informing him about some goods hidden in the nearby Fire Practice Yard. The petitioner went to look to the same but did not find anything and thus came back to the tower.

3. The petitioner was served with the Memorandum dated 21.6.2004 alleging indiscipline and carelessness towards his duties as he was found wandering while holding some goods in his hands which goods were thrown in a nearby bush. On search being conducted, the goods thrown were found to be some copper pipes of some 2.00 kg weight. In another place at the Fire Practice Yard on further search 1.20.00 kg of copper pipes bundled in a gunny bag and hidden in the grass were found. Thus a proposal was laid under Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) for action against the petitioner for minor penalty. The petitioner sent a reply to the Memorandum but the petitioner was found guilty in terms of final order dated 21.7.2004 and was imposed a punishment of deduction of salary equivalent to three (3) days in terms of Rule 34 of the said Rules.

4. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said finding and penalty and thus preferred an appeal under Rule 52 of the said Rules. The appeal was considered by the Commandant who set aside the order dated 21.7.2004, cancelled the charge sheet dated 21.6.2004 and proceeded to direct the issuance of a fresh charge sheet under Rule 36 of the said Rules for imposition of a major penalty. The aforesaid was done without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner.

5. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction a fresh Memorandum was issued to the petitioner dated 18.1.2005 alleging that the petitioner was guilty of moral turpitude and fallacy in performing his duties. A departmental inquiry was held and the department recorded testimonies of six witnesses. It is the grievance of the petitioner that none of the six defense witnesses whom the petitioner wanted to examine were called for deposition.

6. The petitioner was served with the final order dated 20.6.2005 holding him guilty of the charges and a penalty was imposed of reduction of nine stages in the pay-scale of the petitioner from 3,725.00 to Rs. 3,050.00 for five years with a further direction that the petitioner would not earn any annual increments during the period of penalty.

7. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order again filed an appeal which was decided vide order dated 10.2.2006 by the Deputy Inspector General. The findings of the disciplinary authority were affirmed but insofar as the punishment was concerned, the order states that in exercise of Rule 52 of the said Rules the punishment was cancelled and replaced by the punishment of removal from service.

8. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision under Rule 54 of the said Rules, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2006. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present writ petition.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed on 11.12.2004 by the appellate authority under Rule 52 of the said Rules was illegal and without jurisdiction as no direction could have been passed for cancelling the charge sheet and the proceedings in pursuance thereto and ordering a fresh charge sheet. In this behalf Rule 52 of the said Rules has been referred to which reads as under:

52. Consideration of appeals. - (1) In the case of an