The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the rules of natural justice, evidence-based findings of misconduct, and the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 02.09.2014 in his Order No.V-15014/ L&R/ SS/Rev/PKMK/2014/182, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 30.4.2014 in his order No.V-11014(1)/17/Appeal/Anu/SZ/2014/3111 and confirming the order passed by the 4th respondent in his Final Order No.V-15014/VSP/Anu/Major-15/PMK/2014/528, dated 18.1.2014 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of Central Industrial Security Force as Constable with all monetary benefits.)

1. The order of removal issued by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner joined as Constable on 20.03.1996 in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). A charge memorandum under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules was issued by the 4th respondent in proceedings dated 22.10.2013 with the following charges:

ARTICLE OF CHARGE

CISF No. 963510125, Constable Prabhakumar.M.K of CISF Unit VSP-Visakhapatnam was detailed for night shift duty from 1700 hrs on 05.10.2013 to 0500 hrs on 06.10.2013, but he was found absent from shift briefing at about 1640 hrs on 05.10.2013 and also did not turn up for the said duty. The above act of the enrolled member of the Force tantamount to gross indiscipline and dereliction of duty. Hence the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II

CISF No.963510125, Constable Prabhakumar.M.K of CISF Unit VSP-Visakhapatnam came in drunken condition to 'A' Coy, office at about 1715 hrs on 05.10.2013 and started abusing to Company Havildar Major(CHM) HC/GD R.S. Gurjar, Constable/GD A.K.Thakur and Constable/GD Vikash Kumar Sharma. Further constable/GD Prabhakumar M.K. came to main office at about 1755 hrs on the same day and misbehaved with Asstt. Commandant/HQrs, when he was ordered for medical examination, he ran away from main office and later on when traced at his residence, he refused to undergo medical examination. The above act of the enrolled member of the Force tantamount to gross misconduct, insubordination, indiscipline, disobedience of lawful orders of superiors and unbecoming conduct of the member of an Armed Force of the Union of India. Hence the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III

CISF No. 963510125, Constable Prabhakumar. M. K of CISF Unit VSP-Visakhapatnam misconduct and indiscipline activities earlier for absent from unit line from 2240 hrs to 2315 hrs on 31.05.2002 and misbehaving with Insp/Exe N. Hussain, Coy Commander and BHM under influence of liquor at 2325 hrs on 19.01.2005 and shouting abusive language against Insp/Exe N. Hussain. Despite these punishments, he has failed to improve himself and he is committing indiscipline activities and misconduct again and again. Thus, he has become a habitual offender in committing such indiscipline activities which is not expected from a member of a discipline Armed Police Force. Hence the charge.”

3. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defense against the articles of charges and denied allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the delinquent officials. The enquiry report was submitted, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and a second show cause notice was issued, seeking further objections from the charged officials. The writ petitioner submitted his objection and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal and revision and both were rejected. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Th