D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8th March, 2013 delivered by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.864 of 2002, whereby the petition preferred by the writ petitioner was allowed and the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, has been quashed and set aside. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS CASE

The respondent was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short ‘CISF’) bearing his Identification No. 932291323. The said constable was posted at Area-IV of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short ‘BCCL’). He was deployed at Shatabdi Bhawan Strong Room, A.N. College, Patna in Company 613 of CISF during the Lok Sabha Elections of 1999. On 7.10.1999 he was deployed on duty from 17:00 hours to 21:00 hours with a 7.62 mm Rifle bearing Registration No. A-09985 and 50 rounds of ammunitions. On 07.10.1999 during the inspection at 22:00 hours, the respondent was found absent by the Company Commander. It was detected that the respondent left the rifle, ammunitions and his personal belongings in the strong room and fled from his work place. On 09.10.1999 at about 00:15 hours when the Company Commander and the other members of the force reached Munidih Training Centre, Dhanbad, the respondent-Harendra Singh was found present. This action of constable-Harendra Singh, as per the CISF, reflects dereliction of duty, negligence, indiscipline and willful disobedience of the order of his superiors. Since the department felt that the action of the respondent amounts to dereliction of duty, negligence, indiscipline and willful disobedience of the order of his superiors, a memorandum of charge along with imputation was issued to the respondent on 09.11.1999 as contained in Memo No. V-15012/CISF/CO-6/BCCL/ADM/34/98-2533. The charge against the respondent was that he in spite of his deployment in the Strong Room at Shatabdi Bhawan, Patna during Lok Sabha Election 1999 on 07.10.1999 from 17:00 hours to 21:00 hours, along with Rifle and ammunitions, left his place of duty without informing his superior authority. On 09.10.1999 he was found present at the Training Centre at Dhanbad. The charge against the respondent is of dereliction of duty, negligence, indiscipline and willful disobedience of the order of his superiors. Along with charge-sheet, the details of the documents and names of witnesses to prove the charge were furnished. Opportunity was given to the respondent and he submitted his written statement in defence, wherein he denied the charges. As the charges leveled against the respondent was denied by him, the Disciplinary Authority intended to conduct a regular enquiry, thus an Enquiry Officer was appointed.

During enquiry, the respondent was given full opportunity to defend himself and thereafter the enquiry report dated 13.6.2000 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found the charges leveled against the respondent to be proved. The Enquiry Report was furnished to the respondent and he was asked to submit his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The respondent represented and submitted that since he was unwell, he left the place of duty by informing the Guard Commander.

The Disciplinary Authority thereafter, considering the entire records of the case, including the Enquiry Report and the representation submitted by the respondent, vide order dated 24/25.9.2000 awarded the penalty of lowering down his scale to the lowest scale of Rs.3,050/- for a period of five years and it has also been ordered that he would not get any increment during the said period and the period of suspension between 8.10.1999 to 04.01.2000 shall not be counted on duty and he would get only the subsistence allowance for the period, he was k