JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order of punishment dated 04.01.2013, passed by respondent No. 5, whereby he has removed the petitioner from his service. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 26.02.2013, passed by respondent No. 4 and revision order dated 07.10.2015, passed by respondent No. 3, by which the order of punishment has been affirmed by the said two forums.

Petitioner has also prayed that after quashment of the aforesaid orders, the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits considering the break in service as period spent on medical leave.

3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force vide Appointment Offer dated 19.08.2008 and subsequently, the petitioner joined the said post. Thereafter, while the petitioner was discharging his duties, certain unfortunate events took place in his family one after the other like death of his father on 02.05.2012, divorce of petitioner with his wife in July 2012 in addition to that as petitioner had not got his salary for 10 months continuously, as he was mentally depressed. In such medical condition, the petitioner was transferred from CISF Unit PPT Paradip to CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad and petitioner reported at the transferred place on 20.08.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents were fully aware of the mental condition of petitioner and hence, the mother of the petitioner was called by the respondents to visit at Dhanbad, as Psychiatrist of Central Hospital, BCCL Dhanbad needed the detailed information about petitioner from his own relative for treatment of petitioner. On the request of the respondents, the mother of the petitioner along with his brother-in-law visited Dhanbad and requested the respondent-authorities to relieve petitioner on leave so that they can take care of him and start appropriate treatment, but her request was turned down by the respondents and regardless of his mental condition, the concerned respondents did not hospitalize him rather he was forced to perform his regular duties.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 19.10.2012, a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner for an incident which took place on 17.10.2012. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for the said charges and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had issued order of punishment dated 04.01.2013, removing the petitioner from his service and further took a decision that petitioner would not be given salary and other allowances, save and except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal and revision, which also stood rejected and hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

5. Ms. Rakhi Rani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is void ab initio, as principle of natural justice has not been followed in its true sense inasmuch as, due to his mental condition during the relevant period, the petitioner was not able to defend himself properly. Learned counsel submits that it is well settled principle of law that any enquiry conducted in violation of principle of natural justice, is vitiated. Learned counsel further submits that being fully aware about the mental condition of petitioner, the act of the respondents in taking regular duty instead of providing proper treatment to the petitioner, is illegal and not justified. Learned counsel further submits that since the principle of natural justice was not followed in its true sense, the punishment of removal from service being a major penalty under CISF Rules, 2001, is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further subm