JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners along with Mrs. Ahalya Mahto, Advocate.

2. Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate.

3. Writ petition No. 2388 of 2009 has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) To set aside the order dated 12.02.08 passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, CCL, Kargali, and the subsequent order(s) dt. 27.7.08 and 16/19 January, 2009 passed by the D.I.G., CISF Unit CCL, Kargali and the I.G., CISF, Eastern Region, Patna respectively by which the order of commandant is not interfered and appeals again order dt. 5.3.08 are dismissed.

(b) For any other relief(s) so that order aforesaid be set aside and conscionable justice be done to the petitioner without any stricture in his service as would be deemed fit and proper by this court, in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

4. Writ Petition No. 2324 of 2009 has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) To set aside the order dated 05.03.08 passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, CCL, Kargali, and the subsequent order(s) dt. 27.7.08 and 15.01.09 passed by the D.I.G., CISF Unit CCL, Kargali and the I.G., CISF, Eastern Region, Patna respectively by which the order of commandant is not interfered and appeals again order dt. 5.3.08 are dismissed.

(b) For any other relief(s) so that order aforesaid be set aside and conscionable justice be done to the petitioner without any stricture in his service as would be deemed fit and proper by this court, in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

Arguments of the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that the petitioners were subjected to two different disciplinary proceedings arising out of the same incident and, therefore, these two cases have been tagged together. The learned counsel further submits that both these petitioners were posted for security of KMP store and at that point of time, there was an attack of 400-500 extremists in the nearby camp which was only 200 yards away from the place of attack. The aggression of the extremists continued for about three and a half hours and during the incident, two CISF personnels were killed and four SLRs were looted. He submits that the allegations against the petitioners are that in spite of the fact that the petitioners were having 200 rounds of live cartridges, but Ram Avtar Tiwari fired only 20 rounds and Mukesh Chandra Sharma fired only 19 rounds. He submits that the petitioners had acted as per the situation and merely because they had fired only 19/20 rounds, they have been punished in the departmental proceedings for not firing appropriately during the attack. The learned counsel submits that the defence witnesses have stated that the extremists ultimately ran away because of the fact that the petitioners were firing from KMP store. He also submits that the petitioners had tried to come forward and fire, but there was counter-firing and therefore, they could not proceed any further.

6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the support force which came on the spot much later was responsible for the harm caused and the petitioners have merely been made scapegoats in the entire incident. The learned counsel submits that the enquiry officer as well as all the three authorities have not considered these aspects of the matter and accordingly, all the three impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority are perverse and are fit to be set aside.

Arguments of the Respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that all the three authorities have passed reasoned order considering each and every argument of the petitioners. She also submits that at the stage of enquiry, the petitioners duly participated and witnesses were examined. The petitioners had also led defence evidences. The enquiry officer recorded