IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary actions, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment and the principle of natural justice. The court also highlighted the significance of proportionality in imposing disciplinary punishments.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned CGC representing the Union of India.

2. The challenge:

The present writ petition is filed assailing the orders which are as indicated below:

(I) The order dated 29.12.2015, whereby the punishment of removal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner.

(II) Enquiry report dated 23.11.2015.

(III) Order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

(IV) Order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the Revisional Authority.

3. The facts:

The brief facts leading to the present case can be summarized as follows:

(I) While the petitioner was serving as Constable of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and was posted at Ekchari Out Post in the district of Bhagalpur, Bihar, respondent authorities brought an allegation that the petitioner has left the duty without any intimation and without any approval from the competent authority.

(II) An enquiry was conducted whereby charge under Rule 36 of the CISF Regulations Act, 2001 was framed by a charge memorandum dated 14.08.2015 by the Senior Commandant/Enquiry Officer, CISF, KHSTPP, Koholgaon Unit. The charge is quoted herein-below:

“CISF No. 071733588CT/GD Sourav Roy was deployed in Ekchari Outpost line of CISF Unit KHSTPP(K) on dated 08.07.2015 in “C” shift duty from 2011 to 0600 but the deserted his duty post and went to his home village: Daligaon, P.O. Bamakhata Police Station, Patacharkuchi, District Barpeta (Assam), Pin Code 781325 without any permission from any competent Authority. As informed by ASI/Ext. S.N. Singh post Commander and Insp/Exe.MD. Irfan Coy Commander “B” Coy’ after contracting him on his mobile as on 07.07.2015 about 18.10 hrs. After that this office had sent four call up letter to CISF No. 071733588CT/GD Sourav Roy on his home address but neither he appeared for duty nor he intimated anything regarding this. Apart from this CISF No. 071733588CT/GD Sourav Roy was given message through CISF Unit IOCL Bongaigaon by special Messenger for reporting him in the unit but even though he did not report back to the unit for duty.

Being a discipline member of an Armed Force CISF No. 071733588CT/GD Sourav Roy deserted his duty place without any information/permission from the competent Authorities. So, the above act on the part of CISF No. 071733588CT/GD Sourav Roy tantamount to gross indiscipline, misconduct and dereliction of duty and unbecoming member of armed Force. Hence the charge.”

(III) It is the allegation of the employer that even after issuance of many communications, the petitioner neither returned and rejoined his duty nor filed any reply to such charge and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted ex-parte.

(IV) As many as four prosecution witnesses and one court witness were examined in proof of charge leveled against the petitioner.

(V) After completion of the departmental proceeding, by an order dated 29.12.2015 (Annexure-7), the punishment of removal from service under Rule 32(1) of CISF Regulation Act, 2001, was inflicted upon the petitioner.

(VI) Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under the CISF Rule and such appeal was dismissed by an order dated 05.05.2016 by the Appellate Authority.

(VII) Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Revisional Authority preferring a revision and such revision was also dismissed by competent authority under its order dated 03.08.2016.

(VIII) Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Argument on behalf of the petitioner:

Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders argues the following:

(I) There is absolute violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the notices were not duly served upon the petitioner and therefore, he could not reply to such charges and therefore, this Court should in exercise of its power of judicial review may set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding and be pleased to ask the employer to initi