JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the respondents vide which penalty of reduction in pay at stages for one year has been imposed upon the petitioner. In addition, setting aside of order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Appellate Authority and Order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned Revisional Authority, is also sought, whereby his appeal and revision against the order dated 03.06.2016 stood rejected.

2. The background of the petition is that petitioner was recruited in Central Industrial Security Force (`CISF') on 26.07.2010 on the post of Constable/GD. After completion of his training at RTC, Mundali, he was posted at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (`IPCC') at Delhi on 25.03.2011. Thereafter, petitioner was posted at Seventh RB Kishtwar in Jammu and Kashmir on 26.07.2014.

3. On 19.10.2015, an information through e-mail was received by the CISF authority that on 12.10.2015 a written complaint for the offences under Sections 376/417/313 IPC was received at police station Salema, Dhalai, Tripura, against the petitioner, on the basis of which he was arrested on 13.10.2015 and remanded to Kamlapur Jail Custody. The petitioner was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 13.10.2015 vide office order dated 20.10.2015, which was extended for further 90 days w.e.f. 11.01.2016.

4. The petitioner was issued an office Memo dated 13.01.2016 whereby he was given Articles of Charges wherein the first charge levelled against him was that he had concealed the factum of having married one Smt. Bishakha Devnath on 14.11.2012 and the second Article of Charge was that petitioner had failed to inform CISF authorities with regard to his arrest on 13.10.2015 by the Salema Police (Tripura), for allegedly committing offences under Sections 376/417/313 IPC. Accordingly, petitioner had tarnished the image of CISF with his indiscipline and mala fide intention. However, the respondents in exercise of powers under sub-rule (5) of Rule 33 of CISF Rules, 2001 revoked the suspension of petitioner vide order dated 30.01.2016.

5. An enquiry under Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 for the afore-noted Article of Charges was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry on day to day basis and after recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Court witness and considering the documentary evidence along with defence evidence, submitted the Enquiry Report. The petitioner submitted his defence representation on 24.05.2016, wherein he pleaded that he had taken fifteen days' casual leave from 07.10.2015 to 02.11.2015 to visit his home town. But on 13.10.2015, on the basis of the complaint in question, he was arrested and he remained in custody from 13.10.2015 to 13.12.2015. Petitioner was released on regular bail on 14.12.2015 and he claims to have give information with regard to this case to his department from time to time vide his applications dated 14.12.2015; 16.12.2016; 27.01.2016 and 11.02.2016.

6. The competent authority of CISF, after considering the Enquiry Report dated 20.05.2016, vide order dated 03.06.2016 exonerated the petitioner from the first Article of Charge i.e. relating to his marriage with the complainant. However, with regard to second Article of Charge, petitioner was held guilty for not informing the competent authority of CISF about his arrest by the civil police. It was held as under:

"14. Thus after carefully considering all the recodes during the inquiry, statements of prosecution witnesses and the evidences produced by them, the defence representation submitted by accused and the evidence which is available in the record and the facts concerned with the case, during the inquiry I come to this finding that Charge No. 1 leveled on No. 102301609 Constable/GD Prabhat Das is not proved, but also Charge No. 2 is fully proved. Therefore now I the undersigned exercise the powers con