JUDGMENT :

AKIL KURESHI, J.

1. Petitioner, a member of the Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF" for short), has challenged the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Revisional Authority by which he was ordered to be removed from service. The facts are as under:

2. In the year 2009, the petitioner was working as a Constable in CISF. He was posted at ONGC, Ahmedabad. He was served with a chargesheet dated 23.11.2009. It contained the following charges:

(i) that he was under order dated 31.10.2009 to perform election duty to Jharkhand for the 2009 State election. On 02.11.2009, the petitioner appeared before the Company Commandent and told him that: `Even though I have been posted for election duty, I am not going to go. You may do what you want. I have already spoken to the Assistant Commandant'. He further told him that: `You are showing partiality. I am not going to go for election duty. I will drag you to the Court even if I have to face suspension or lose my service'. It was, therefore, alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with his superior officer in this manner;

(ii) On 31.10.2009, the petitioner was instructed that, for election duty at Jharkhand he should report on 03.11.2009 at Concentration Centre, Mehsana ONGC. The petitioner, in order to escape from election duty, by faking illness, got himself admitted in Rajasthan Hospital on the previous day before 03.11.2009 and was discharged on 05.11.2009. He remained on medical rest between 06.11.2009 and 11.11.2009. However, upon perusal of medical reports, it was revealed that he was not suffering from any serious illness. Thus, the petitioner, who was a member of the armed force, in order to avoid election duty, got himself wrongly admitted in the hospital'

(iii) On 21.11.2009, the petitioner tried to misguide driver of Balero jeep car in order to prevent him from using the said vehicle for purchase of vegetables for the mess. He also threatened the driver of the vehicle not to use the said vehicle to go to Kheda or Ahmedabad for purchases. If he did so, the petitioner threatened that he would teach him a lesson;

(iv) It was alleged that on three previous occasions, the petitioner was visited with minor penalties for his indiscipline. This last charge was made for the past conduct of the petitioner.

3. Upon the petitioner denying the charges, a departmental inquiry was set up. Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 15.03.2010 holding the charges to have been proved. A copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was supplied to the petitioner. He was allowed to make a representation. The disciplinary authority, after considering the material on record, passed an order dated 27.4.2010 imposing punishment of deduction of the petitioner's pay by two stages for a period of three years, which would have the effect of postponing his future increments also.

4. Against such order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal, though available under the service rules. Higher authority, however, issued a show cause notice dated 21.9.2010 why the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be enhanced to that of removal from service. In such notice, he recorded his tentative reasons why, in his opinion, the penalty was not adequate.

5. The petitioner made a representation dated 22.10.2010 in response to such show cause notice in which his sole contention was that, during the course of inquiry he was denied an opportunity of examining as his witnesses the persons who were present on the date of the alleged incident. He may, therefore, be granted such opportunity. Significantly, he did not make any submissions why the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be treated inadequate.

6. The disciplinary authority, after considering the material on record, passed the impugned order on 12.11.2010 removing the petitioner from service. It is this order the petitioner has challenged in this writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised