(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. These petitions arise out of a common background. Facts being very similar, we may notice those arising in Special Civil Application No.5325/2010.

2. The petitioner was at the relevant time working as a constable in Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF” for short). He was stationed at Air Force Yelanka, Bangalore. On 6.3.2009, a chargesheet was issued against him which contained five charges. It was alleged in the chargesheet that from 11.2.2009 to 15.2.2009, he was posted temporarily at the International airport, Bangalore. On 15.2.2009, at about 9 O’ clock, he left CISF campus without prior permission and consumed liquor. He thereafter, got into an argument with an employee of CRPF Chikkabhiraiya by name and scuffled with him. During his medical examination, it was revealed that the employee was under influence of alcohol. Case of the employer is that the said charged official along with his colleague (petitioner of SCA No.5324/2010) and yet another person (not before us), had thus got involved in the said incident. In the chargesheet it is further alleged, that during the scuffle, the charged official caused injury to the said employee of CRPF. He thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of CISF. Charge article-5 pertained to his past conduct. It was pointed out that during his service career on four previous occasions, he was visited with minor penalties on basis of his misconducts.

3. The petitioner filed a reply to the said chargesheet in which he admitted his presence outside the CISF campus in the night of 15.2.2009. He however, denied that such visit was without permission since according to him no such permission was needed. He also admitted to a verbal altercation with the CRPF constable. He however, denied any physical assault. With respect to the past penalties, he stated that since he had already undergone such punishment, same should be discarded from consideration.

4. In case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No.5324/2010, first four charges are identical. In charge article-5, the department has in case of such employee also alleged past minor punishments, ofcourse, for different misconduct.

5. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 8.7.2009. He held that the charges were proved. He held that the petitioner had left the CRPF campus without permission and under the influence of alcohol scuffled with the constable of CRPF and also injured him.

6. The disciplinary authority concurred with the view of the inquiry officer. The representation of the employee was taken into account. He held that the charges were proved. Considering the facts of the case, he imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits. Facts are similar in case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No.5324/2010 also. The third charged employee however, was exonerated.

7. Learned counsel Ms. Sonal Vyas for the petitioners submitted that the inquiry officer erred in holding the charge of injuring the constable of CRPF as proved. There was no evidence to establish such charge. The disciplinary authority also erred in taking into account the past punishments which were already undergone by the employees. She lastly submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement was grossly disproportionate. In support of her contentions, she relied on the following decisions :

1) In case of Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engineering College and others reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 301. It was however, a case where a sweeper was dismissed from service for unauthorised absence for a total of 15 days. Employee’s defence was that he had to remain away from duty to sort out his daughter’s problems with inlaws. It was found that his past service record was otherwise blemishless. It was in this background that the Apex Court found that the punishment was disproportionate and ordered substitution of the same by stoppage of two incremen