The main legal point established is that disciplinary proceedings are not required to prove charges beyond all reasonable doubt, and the disciplinary authority must consider a preponderance of probability based on the material on record. The court also emphasized that the exercise of power in disciplinary proceedings should not be manifestly arbitrary or based on irrelevant factors.

ANIL KUMAR, J

1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of punishment order dated 30th April, 1997,the order dated 26th June, 1998 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and the order dated 7th August, 1999 passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner has further sought his reinstatement with full service benefits.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner was detailed for election duty in Uttar Pradesh. While camping at CISF Unit, IISCO Burnpur certain officers had mistaken the alleged toy pistol of the petitioner to be a real pistol, which led to an incident due to which reason the petitioner was ordered to be apprehended, as the petitioner had become violent under the influence of liquor, he was therefore, taken to the police station in the night of 13th September, 1996.

3. The petitioner was thereafter released on bail on the next day, and after trial in the Court of SDJM Asansol on 16th September, 1996 the petitioner was convicted and fined Rs.50/-under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioner was also placed under suspension with effect from 15th September, 1996 and on receipt of the preliminary enquiry report he was chargesheeted under Rule 34 by memo dated 25th October, 1996. The charges framed against the petitioner are as under:-

Charge No.I

No. 894360205 Constable Raje Singh of CISF Unit, ASP Durgapur indulged in gross misconduct, an act of indiscipline, insubordination and unbecoming a member of an Armed Force in that while comping at CISF Unit, IISCO Burnpur for onward journey to Uttar pradesh on election duty, has after consumption of liquor misbehaved with Insp/Exe B.Guruswamy at 'A'-Coy line of CISF Unit, IISCO Eiurnpur and Shri J.S.Negi, Asstt. Commandant/JA0 of CISF Unit, IISCO Burnpur on 13.09.96 at about 1915 hrs using unparliamentary/abusive and threatening language therby creating an ugly scene in the Unit premises for which he was handed over to Police', convicted under Section290 of IPC, and later released by the SDJM Assansol Court with fine of Rs.50/-. Hence the charge.

Charge No.II

During the service in CISF, No.894360208 Constable Raje Singh has been awarded 04 Major penalties and 03 minor penalties under CISF Rules, 1969 for' gross misconduct, indisciplined activities and negligence of duty but he has not corrected himself inspite of enough opportunities given to him, which shows that Constable Raje Singh is unfit to become/not likely to be a desireable member of Armed Force being a habitual offender and incorrigible. Hence the charge.”

5. The enquiry proceedings were held at CISF Unit, IISCO Burnpur and later at Durgapur in phases. During the enquiry proceedings 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents and the petitioner also gave his statement. Though the defence assistant was appointed and the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, however, the petitioner did not cross examine most of the witnesses and rather stated that he had been pressurized and threatened. The petitioner did not cross examine Sh.J.S.Negi, Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, IISCO Burnpur, PW-1; Sh.B.N.Bej, Inspector PW22; Constable Rudresh Kumar, CISF Unit, IISCO, Burnpur, PW-3; Insp./Exe.B.Guruswamy, PW-4; ASI/Exe.Ram Kishore of CISF Unit, IISCO, Burnpur, PW-5 and Sh.S.V.Bhai, Assistant Commandant, PW-6.

6. On 31st December, 1996, the petitioner was given another opportunity to cross examine the witnesses as the enquiry proceedings were shifted from Burnpur to Durgapur, to be conducted at CISF Unit, ASP, Durgapur. He was advised that he need not fear anyone, nor he should feel pressurized, as on earlier occasions he had been declining to cross examine the witnesses on the ground that he is being pressurized and threatened. Despite another opportunity being given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses, he did not cross examine any of the witnesses.

7. The defence assistant, however, cross examined Ins