IMPORTANT POINT
The disciplinary authority has the discretion to disagree with an inquiry officer's findings, provided it records reasons for its disagreement and adheres to principles of natural justice in the disciplinary process.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

Since similar facts and common issues are involved in both writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of analogously.

2. Heard the parties.

Prayers

3. In W.P.(S) No. 1298 of 2013, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.03.1998 passed by Commandant, Central Industrial Security Police Force, CTPS, Chandrapura (respondent no.2) by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. The appellate order dated 20.10.1998 passed by respondent no.2 affirming the dismissal order is also under challenge.

4. In W.P.(S) No. 3831 of 2012, the petitioner has thrown challenge to the order dated 28.07.1998 passed by Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, CTPS, Chandrapura (respondent no.2) whereby he was dismissed from service. He has also challenged the order dated 28.04.1999 by which the respondent no.2 being the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred against the punishment order dated 28.07.1998. The revisional order dated 29.06.2004 is also under challenge.

The facts

5. The petitioners, while posted at CISF Unit, FCI Sindri, were put under suspension with the allegation of involvement of theft along with outsiders in SAP crossing area. Altogether, three charges were leveled against petitioner Raj Pal and four charges were levelled against petitioner Tarlok Singh. In nutshell, Charge No. 1 against both the petitioners are that they were involved in theft of FCI plant property along with outsiders in SAP crossing area at about 11.50 pm on 13.7.1996, which amounts to misconduct under the provisions of Section 18 of the CISF Act. Similar nature of allegation is leveled as per Charge No.2 against both the petitioners, i.e. while they were under suspension, they did not mark their attendance regularly at Shaharpura Main Gate in the register, which amounts to neglect of Govt. duty within the meaning of Section 18 of the CISF Act. The further allegation as against Charge No.3 is that both the petitioners during suspension period went to Domgarh Gate and abused/ threatened the constable posted at Domgarh Gate for not allowing exist to one civilian. Charge No. 4 against petitioner Tarlok Singh is that during suspension period, he threatened, used filthy languages and snatched spectacles of one SI/Ex-U.K. Basak on 1.10.1996 at Dhanbad Court premises.

6. With the aforesaid charges, the petitioners were proceeded departmentally by framing memo of charge on 27.11.1996 and a criminal case was also lodged against them. The petitioners submitted their written statement of defence to the charges leveled against them, wherein they have denied the charges aforesaid and claim to be innocent. As the defence taken by the petitioners was not found satisfactory, enquiry proceeding was started. After considering the entire evidences oral as well as documentary, the inquiry officer proved the charge no.II with respect to disobeying the order to put their attendance during suspension period. However, charge nos. I and III, as also charge no. IV (only petitioner Tarlok Singh) were found to be not proved and they were exonerated from the charges. The disciplinary authority having disagreed with the findings returned by the inquiry officer with regard to Charge No.I and III issued show cause notices to the petitioner Raj Pal on 21.01.1997 and on 27.03.1998 to the petitioner Tarlok Singh against charge nos. I, III and IV explaining the reasons for his disagreement and extending them an opportunity to give their show causes. Upon receipt of the replies, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from service against the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred appeals, but the same were also rejected. It is further case of petitioner Tarlok Singh that earlier he approached this Court in CWJC No. 10588 of 1999 challenging the penalty order as well as appellate order. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.11.2003 giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the dismissal or