A.K. Goel, C.J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18-06-2010 passed in W.P. (C). No. 1445/2009 setting aside the dismissal of the respondent/writ petitioner and directing his reinstatement in service with all service benefits. However, the issue relating to payment of back wages was left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority but the learned Single Judge directed refund of the amount of Rs. 1,09,344/- seized from the possession of the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum. The Union of India and the concerned authorities of General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), who were respondents in W.P. (C). No. 1445 of 2009, are in appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order.

2. The facts of the case as projected by the respondent/writ petitioner in the writ petition may be briefly noted.

3. Writ petitioner was appointed as Superintendent, Buildings and Roads Grade-II in GREF on 21-04-1987. While serving at Mizoram, he was placed under suspension by order dated 27-07-1992 issued by the appellant No. 3 under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 1965 Rules) for alleged misuse of Govt. property/stores and accumulation of Rs. 1,09,344/- by unfair means. The said suspension order was, however, subsequently revoked by order dated 14-11-1994.

4. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioner, being Serchip P.S. Case No. 9/94 under Section 408, IPC. However, the said case ended by way of filing of final report dated 14-11-1994 in the Court of Addl. District Magistrate (J), Aizawl, wherein it was stated that the case was investigated but there was insufficient evidence. The final report was accepted by the Magistrate.

5. In the meanwhile, when the petitioner was under suspension, the Director General of Police (Border Roads) issued order dated 30-09-1994 initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner under provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 by way of hearing of charges/summary of evidence. In the summary of evidence, the allegation against the petitioner relating to selling of goods from Government stores to civilians could not be substantiated. The proceedings initiated under the Army Act could not be concluded as it had become time barred.

6. The appellants thereafter switched over from the Army Act and decided to proceed under 1965 Rules. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the Commander (respondent No. 3) on 23-12-1995 levelling 3 charges against the petitioner, the gist of which is that he was found in illegal possession of Rs. 1,09,344/- on 10-06-1992, which was disproportionate to his own source of income and that while functioning as Supervisor, he had misappropriated Government stores. The third charge was that the petitioner amassed money by gambling.

7. Petitioner submitted his written statement in defence denying the charges levelled against him. An inquiry was conducted and on conclusion of the same, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the first two charges were proved.

8. Petitioner submitted detailed representation against the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority i.e. appellant No. 3 by order dated 24-11-1997 held that the departmental case against the petitioner was established in so far charge Nos. 1 & 2 were concerned and, therefore, imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service.

9. Petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority against the award of penalty imposed on him. However, the appellate authority vide order dated 22-01-1998 upheld the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

10. Initially, the petitioner had moved the Madras High Court challenging his dismissal from service. His writ petition was dismissed by a Single Bench of the said High Court where after he filed writ appeal. A Division Ben