Validity of the order of dismissal challenged.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of Mohan, J. in W.P. No. 5505 of 1981.

2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein for the issue of a writ of certforari from this Court to quash the order of the first respondent herein dated 25.7.1979 which confirmed the order of the second respondent dated 30.1.1979 which in turn confirmed the order of the third respondent dated 2.11.1978.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the said writ petition may briefly be noted. The appellant was working as a security guard in the Central Industrial Security Force since 1971 and was attached to the Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Madras Refineries Limited, Manali, during the year 1976-77. He was on duty at the railway gate post from 23.00 hours on 4.8.1976 to 0700 hours on 5.8.1976. At 0415 hours, Assistant Sub-Inspector Joseph while on checking rounds asked the appellant to produce his beat book which the latter flatly refused. In addition he abused the Assistant Sub-Inspector with threatening gestures. On the same day at about 0500 hours when one S. Srinivasan conveyed the orders of the duty officer that the appellant is to be relieved by him, the latter refused to hand over charge to the former. Treating the said conduct of the appellant as amounting to gross indiscipline and insubordination, a charge memo dated 6.8.1976 was served on him containing the following three charges by the Assistant Commandant.

(1) Disobedience of lawful orders of Assistant Sub-Inspector, K.I. Joseph, Duty Officer, C.I.S.F, M.R.L. at L.P.G/Asphalt area on 5th August, 1976 at about 04.15 hrs.

(2) Gross indiscipline against A.S.I.K.I. Joseph Duty Officer, C.I.S.F./M.R.L. at L.P.G. Asphalt area on 5th August, 1976 at about 04.15 hrs.

(3) Disobedience of lawful orders of A.S.I.K.I. Joseph, Duty Officer C.I.S.F/M.R. L. at L.P.G. area on 5th August, 1976 at about 0500 Hrs.

He was asked to submit his explanation on 13.8.1976. After receipt of his explanation on 13.8.1976 there was an oral enquiry in which 3 witnesses were examined on the side of the Department and they were cross-examined. On the basis of the evidence gathered at the time of the enquiry and other relevant records, the enquiry officer found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, the third respondent the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show cause notice calling upon the appellant to put forth his further representations and proposing a punishment of dismissal from service for the charges (sic) to have been proved. The appellant submitted his further representations on 9.9.1976. The third respondent by his order dated 2.11.1976 dismissed the appellant from service from the date of receipt of the order. Thereupon the appellant filed an appeal to the second respondent the Appellate Authority who, by his order dated 11.4.1978, set aside the order of the third respondent and directed reinstatement of the appellant in service, giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to hold a de novo enquiry from the stage of issuing the fresh charge memo after holding that the enquiry officer (Assistant Commandant) has not been properly constituted nor did he obtain the sanction of the appointing authority to hold the enquiry against the appellant. Thereafter the appellant was reinstated and a fresh charge memo was issued against him by the third respondent, Croup Commandant, on 7.7.1978 containing the, same three charges. On receipt of the appellant's explanation on 26.7.1978, the Assistant Commandant, P.S. Panicker was appointed as the enquiry officer on 1.8.1978. This time four witnesses were examined on the side of the Department and one witness on the side of the appellant. The enquiry officer, after considering the evidence found the appellant guilty of all the three charges. A show cause notice proposing punishment of removal from service was issued by the Group Commandant, the third respondent, on 25.9.1