Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This writ has been filed for quashing Annexure-4 by which the appellant authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as also the An-nexure-2 by which the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service against the petitioner.

2. The short questions to be answered in this writ are :--

1. Whether the enquiry was vitiated because a junior man conducted the enquiry in which senior person appeared as a witness who had made allegation on the petitioner?

2. Whether, the disciplinary authority was justified in disagreeing within the finding of the enquiry officer without giving any opportunity to the petitioner before passing such order?

3. Whether without serving any show cause notice the disciplinary authority could have passed the order of removal from service against the petitioner?

4. Whether in the circumstances the petitioner has been prejudiced?

5. Whether the appreciation of evidence Is perverse?

3. The question aforesaid arise out of the following facts--

The petitioner at the relevant time was Head Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (Est.) and was on duty in A shift at slag dump area as incharge on 22.3.1994, S.K. Mondol, Deputy Commandant had visited the area along with his driver and noticed some people seeing them fleeing away. He also noticed that a person running away towards the opposite direction was in uniform and the officials when reached there found the petitioner there. According to the petitioner that was a thoroughfare and the people used to pass through that. The Deputy Commandant found Rs. 59 thrown where this petitioner was found standing. Thereafter the petitioner was departmentally proceeded on two charges :--

Charge No.--I

"CISF No. 7513133 HC/GD D.N. Hembram is charged with gross misconduct while he was deployed for duty at slag dump area in 1st shift from 0500 hrs to 1300 hrs., at about 0810 hrs., Shri S.K. Mondal, Dy Comdt/Adm checked the area and it was found that HC/GD D.N. Hembram connived with the criminals and allowed them to move freely in his duty area."

Charge No.--II

"CISF No. 7513133 HC/GD D.N. Hembram is charged with gross misconduct while he was deployed for duty at slag dump area in 1st shift from 0500 hrs to 1300 hrs., at about 0810 hrs., he had thrown a sum of Rs. 59/- (Rs. Fifty Nine Only) which was in his possession while Shri S.K. Mondal, Dy Commandant called him towards his jeep and thus, he violated the unit standing order No. 3/89 dt. 30.3.1989.

Petitioner participated in the enquiry.

4. After enquiry the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer had found the charge No. 1 not proved and the charge No. 2 proved but the disciplinary authority on considering the materials available on records and re-appreciating the evidence as collected by the enquiry officer differed with the finding of the enquiry officer and held that both the charges were proved and consequently he passed the order petitioners removal from the service.

5. It is found that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ bearing No. 1228 of 1995 (R), which was disposed of by order dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure-3). In that writ the petitioner had raised the points that an enquiry officer had found that only the second charge had been proved so without giving any opportunity or without serving a copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner the disciplinary authority could not have disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer. He has also raised the question that he was not served any show cause before passing of the final order of removal by the disciplinary authority and in appeal preferred under Rule 29-A read with Schedule-II of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules the Deputy Inspector General without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to place his case and confirmed the disciplinary order. The Court allowed the writ and observed that the enquiry report should have been served on the petitioner befo