Vikramaditya Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner a Head Constable/GD in Central Industrial Security Force (force for short), posted at Dhurwa, Ranchi, was departmentally proceeded on following charges :

"BAL KRAMANK 7346601345 PRAD-HAN/CD MAHESH SHARMA K.AOU.SU.B. H.E.C. RANCHI-4F.F.P. SAMWAY" MEN DINANK 6.3.1998 KO DWITIYA PALI MEN TAINATI KE DAURAN SAMAY LAGBHAG 12.45 KO F.F.P. MUKHYA DWAR PAR BAL KRAMANK 764280157 UP NIRIK- SHAK/KARYA R.N.RAI EBOM BAL KRAMANK 724380187 PRADHAN ARAKSHAK B.K. SHRIVASTAVA KE DICH DUTY KE SAMBANDH MEN KI JA RAHI BAT CHIT KE DAURAN ANABASHYAK RUP SE HASTACHHEP KARATE HUYE KATHIT UP NIRIK-SHAK/KARYA R.N. RAI KE SATH ASAN-SADIYA BHASHAYON KA PRAYOG EBOM ASHOBHNIYA HARAKAT KI TATHA NIYANTRAN KAKCHA MEN RAKHI DUTY REGISTER MEN HAS-TAKCHHAR KARANE KE BABJUD BHI PUNAH NIYANTRAN KAKSHA MEN JAHAN UP NIRIKSHAK/KARYA R.N. RAI KA KALAR PAKADTE HUYE KRIYABASTHA MEN BELT KE NICHE SUVYA DHARIT JUNGLE SHOE SE EK LAT MARA, JISKA NISHAN PENT PAR ANKIT HAI. BAL KRAMANK 734660134 PRADHAN ARAKSHI SHRI MAHESH SHARMA KA YAH KRITYA GOR JURACHARAN, DUR DURVYABYAR EBOM ANUSHASANHINTA KA PRAICHAYAK HALATHA YAH AAROP HAL"

2. The enquiry officer submitted his report after enquiry (Annexure 2), in which it is said that the petitioner has participated and he was examined as DW 1. The enquiry officer found the charges proved beyond doubt. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to the DIG (Annexure 3) stating that he is innocent and prayed him to disbelieve the charges. He also discussed the entire evidence adduced before the enquiry officer. He also stated that the enquiry officer has not considered the ease partially. The disciplinary authority considered the entire matter, examined the evidence, facts of the petitioner-proceedee and gave his finding that the charge is proved and after rejecting the plea of the petitioner that he was innocent awarded the following punishment :

"ATAEB, KATHIT AARROPI KO PRAMANIT AAROP KE LIYA DOSHI PAYE JANE KE KARAN ADHOHASTHAK SHARI KO KEYAUSUB NIYAM NIYAMABALI 1969 KE NIYAM 29(A], ANUSUCHMI EBOM NIYAM 31(D) KE ANTARGAT PADATTA ASHIKARON KE PARIPREKSHYA MEN ETAD DWORA "BAL KRAMANK 734660134 PR. AA. /CD MAHESH SHARMA KO TATKAL AARAK-SHAK PAD KE NIMN SABADHIK BETAN MAN REPAYE 3050-4500 MEN TAB TAK KE LIYE PADABANAT KIYA JATA HAI, JAB TAK IS AADESH KI TITHI SE DO BARSHON KE PASHCHAT PRAD-HAN AARAKSHAK/CD PAD PAR PUNH STHAPAN KE LIYE YOGYA NAHI PAYA JATA HAL"

2. He also directed the petitioner that he can file appeal against the order. He also directed that during the period of suspension he shall be treated as without duty. A copy of that order was directed to be made available to the petitioner along with the relevant documents. Then it appears that the petitioner filed a representation (Annexure 5) making his plea of innocent, assailing the evidence and also the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. Besides further plea that the defence witnesses, namely, Sri C.K. Singh, Sri T.K. Singh, Sri R.P. Singh and S.I. Sri Pradip Singh were not allowed to appear in enquiry and under pressure it was taken from them in writing that they had no information of the occurrence, though ASI Tejpal Singh in his evidence before the enquiry officer had stated that Sri T.K. Singh had caught hold of Mahesh Sharma. Appellate Authority by Annexure-5/1 disallowed the appeal.

3. The ground for assailing the impugned orders are as follows :

(i) That the show cause of the petitioner was not properly considered because the Disciplinary Authority observed that the petitioner had neither admitted charge levelled against him nor denied the same. No appreciation of evidence was made. (Paras 15 and 19)

(ii) The authority has no right to reduce the pay without following the provisions laid down in Force Rules and also without considering the statements of the witnesses.

4. A counter-affidavit had been filed by the respondents. Annexure A is an order of the DIG under Rule 30, Sub-rule (1) of the Fo