The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary authority must pass a proper speaking order showing the due application of mind without being prejudice of extraneous considerations, and a Writ Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and two others, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated October 11, 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petitioners (respondents) writ petition holding the departmental enquiry proceedings conducted by the respondents was actuated by bias and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including promotion. Due to non-implementation of the judgment, a contempt case was also filed the fate of which would depend on the outcome of this appeal.

2. Respondent (writ petitioner) is employed as SI (Electrician) in the Indo-Tibetian Border Police (ITBP). While he was working in ITBP Academy Mussoorie, he was transferred to SPT Battalion Karera, Madhya Pradesh on July 12, 1989 with a direction to join duty on July 21, 1989. Petitioner did not join the duty and remained absent for 146 days, unauthorisedly. Petitioner reported for duty at SPT Battalion Karera on December 15, 1989 (FN), but was found guilty of disobedience of the order, neglect of duty and misconduct in his capacity as a member of Force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. On joining duty, he again applied for 10 days casual leave which was granted from July 30, 1990 to August 12, 1990 (AN), but he again absented from duty for 95 days which also amounted to disobedience of orders, neglect of duty and misconduct in his capacity as member of the Force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949. Again, he left the Unit Lines without sanction of leave by competent authority unauthorisedly making an entry in GD Register on November 17, 1990 and absented himself, and was again found guilty of disobedience of order, neglect of duty and misconduct. Petitioner had proceeded on 10 days casual leave with effect from January 1, 1991 to January 13, 1991, but inspite of repeated instructions did not report for duty, committing gross misconduct.

3. A memo of charges dated September 5, 1991 alongwith the statements of articles of charges I to IV, statement of imputation in support of each article of charges I to IV, a list of witnesses, list of documents relied on, were delivered to the petitioner by the competent officer. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and contention was raised that he had absented himself for the conduct of his personal cases and for reasons beyond his control. Further, it was contended that the charges leveled against him were motivated, since he had exposed the illegality committed in payment of training allowance to the officers and, therefore, attracted their wrath.

4. We heard Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the Union of India, and the petitioner, who appeared in person. The memo of charges dated September 5, 1991 alongwith the statement of allegations, list of witnesses, list of documents also were made available to the petitioner, to which the petition pleaded not guilty. We find initially one Mr. Pratap Singh, then Assistant Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer and on a representation made by the delinquent, the Enquiry Officer was changed and one Jai Singh, then Second-in-Command was appointed as Enquiry Officer and later Shri R.T. Kotwal, then Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who completed the enquiry.

5. During the enquiry, 7 prosecution witnesses were examined and 78 exhibits were produced in support of the charges and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on December, 5, 1992, rendering his findings on all the charges. Petitioner in his statement while defending his case had stated that he had applied for leave for conducting certain cases, no orders were passed on those leave applications. The petitioner did not produce oral or documentary evidence in support of his petition and did not avail of the opportunity of cross-examining some of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved. The delinquent was given a c