S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Commandant, CISF, Unit HEC Dhurwa, Ranchi, against the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2003, passed by the carried single Judge In CWJC No. 2286 of 1998(R), whereby and whereunder, the order of dismissal from service, passed against the 1st respondent-writ petitioner (Deep Singh) as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, has been set aside with a direction to the appellant to reinstate the 1st respondent in service.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent while serving as Constable at CISF. Unit HEC, Ranchi, was proceeded against departmentally under Rule 34 of the CISF, Rules. 1969 by the disciplinary authority vide Charge Memorandum No. V-15014/HEC/Adm-III/Maj-25/94-1307 dated 17th November, 1994 on account of the following charges :

"Gross misconduct, indiscipline and carelessness on duty in that while he was detailed for C shift duty from 2100 hrs. on 31.10.1994 to 0500 hrs. on 1.11.1994 at CTI Hostel duty post of HMTP plant with Arm and Ammunition was found sleeping on the floor of his duty post at 2300 hrs. on 31.10.1994 when checked by general night checking duty officer Inspector/Exe S.K. Mishra. He was found in intoxicated condition and was smelling Alcohol."

3. In the departmental .proceeding the delinquent employee was given opportunity in accordance with law and rules of natural justice. The enquiry officer after hearing both the sides and taking into consideration all the relevant evidences on record held both the charges proved i.e., the delinquent was sleeping during duty hours without caring for proper safety of arms and ammunitions and was under the influence of liquor while on duty. The disciplinary authority i.e., Commandant, CISF. Unit HEC, Ranchi agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and dismissed the employee (1st respondent) vide final order dated 15th July, 1995. The appellate authority, in its turn, dismissed the appeal vide reasoned order dated 17/18th November, 1995. The revisional authority also upheld that order of the appellate authority by its detailed order dated 22nd November/4th December, 1997, affirming the order of dismissal.

4. The learned single Judge, on appreciation of the evidences, disbelieved the allegation and accepted the stand taken by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and held the order of punishment illegal on the ground that the authorities had not taken into consideration all the aspects and the charges were not so grave, warranting punishment of dismissal from service.

5. The main plea taken by the appellant is that the learned single Judge should not have re-appreciated the evidences under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to substitute his findings in place of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and that the order of dismissal from service was commensurate with the gravity of the charges.

6. Counsel for the 1st respondent while opposed the submissions, relied on the evidences, which were relied by the learned single Judge, to suggest that there was no evidence to prove the charges.

7. For coming to the conclusion that the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority failed to consider certain aspects and that the charges were not grave, the learned single Judge relied on some evidences, as was noticed and observed, as follows :-

"3. The Enquiry Officer, while submitting this report vide Annexure 2/1 has given details of the documents that were brought on record during the course of enquiry. One such document is at Serial No. 4 and it mentions the medical prescription dated 31.10.1994, Registration No. E/13757/94. This document has been brought on record by the respondents themselves vide Annexure F to the counter-affidavit at running page 87 herein. When one reads, goes through and comprehends the nothings of the Doctor, no prudent man would ever come to a conclusion that the person who was examined was "in drunken state" because th