1. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. A.C. Kalita, the learned CGC.

2. The petitioner is a former constable of the CISF and he challenges his punishment of removal from service ordered on 29.12.2005 (Annexure-C). The rejection of his representation on the penalization ordered on 19.3.2010 (Annexure-F), is also under challenge by the delinquent.

3. The disciplinary action was initiated against the constable under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the CISF Rules") with the Charge Memo dated 4.5.2005, containing the following charge :

"That No.8570154/851399263 Constable Nripen Das of CISF Unit ONGC Tripura while serving at CISF Unit, ECL Seetalpur, Lalmatia Camp took active part and indulged in torturing to a civilian Mohammed Rais Ansari, son of Haji Rustom Ali Ansari by bearing brutally in the night of 05/06.06.1993 along with other CISF personnel of the said camp, as a result, Mohammed Rais Ansari fell down and died in the Lalmatia Camp line on the same day. The heinous act on the part of No. 8570154/851399263 Constable Nripen Das has not only tarnished the image of the Force but also affected the tranquility of the CISF Unit, ECL Seetalpur, Lalmatia Camp, which shows gross misconduct, indiscipline and unbecoming of an enrolled member of the discipline Force. Hence the charge"

4. At the first instance, on consideration of the relevant facts, the Group Commandant, CISF Headquarter, Guwahati concluded that, it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry on the incident in the CISF camp. Thus dispensing with the regular procedure, the punishment of dismissal was awarded on 16.7.1994. This was challenged by the aggrieved constable and under the judgment dated 3.5.1999 (Annexure-B) in the Civil Rule No.2060/1997, the High Court noted that the departmental inquiry into the charge was not entirely impossible and on that basis, quashed the penalization and ordered for reinstatement of the CISF constable. Liberty was however granted for initiation of disciplinary proceeding, in accordance with law.

5. The aggrieved employer then filed the Writ Appeal No.311/1999 but that was dismissed by the Division Bench on 25.11.2004.

6. Following the above intervention of the High Court, the delinquent constable was reinstated on 21.7.1994 but was placed under suspension, under Rule 33 (4) of the CISF Rules. Thereafter the Charge Memo dated 4.5.2005 was issued but the charge was simply denied by the delinquent. The response to the Charge Memo was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly the inquiry was ordered into the charge.

7. The record shows that during the inquiry, the delinquent was given the opportunity to avail a defence assistant but he chose to defend himself. The witnesses were examined and evidence were recorded with due opportunities to both sides and the charges were found to have been proved in a fair proceeding. The copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the delinquent against which, he submitted his response on 19.12.2005. After due consideration of the materials on records, the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of removal from service to the delinquent, under his order dated 29.12.2005 (Annexure-C).

8. Although the CISF Rules provide for Appeal under Rule 46 of the CISF Rules, the delinquent neither filed any appeal, within the prescribed period nor did he approach the Revisional Authority, as permitted by Rule 54 of the CISF Rules. However, 3 years after the removal order of 29.12.2005, the delinquent addressed a representation on 28.3.2009, where he mentioned of his acquittal of the criminal charge and on that basis, prayed for his reinstatement.

9. The DIG of the CISF under the impugned order of 19.3.2010 however observed that the degree of proof in criminal and disciplinary proceeding are not identical and the conclusion in departmental proceeding is to be re