The court emphasized that the findings of an Enquiry Officer cannot be nullified as long as there is relevant evidence to support them, and that the power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT :

S. N. Prasad, J.

Mr. Aurobind Mohanty, Central Government Standing Counsel submits that he has filed memo of appearance on behalf opposite parties 1 to 4. Office is directed to trace out and bring on record.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 25.2.2003 passed by the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Patna by which order of punishment of compulsory retirement has been confirmed by the regional authority has approached this Court.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who was performing his duty as Guard of C.I.S.F. Unit, NALCO, Damanjodi and detailed for ‘A’ shift duty from 05:00 hours to 13 hours on 12.2.2001 at Plant main gate collected money from the incoming trucks illegally. When checked a sum of Rs.130/- excess than the pocket money of Rs.10/- was found and recovered.

4. Accordingly, article of charge has been served on the petitioner directing to face regular disciplinary proceeding by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry, witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, Enquiry Officer has found the charge proved against the petitioner and thereafter he referred before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after accepting the same has issued certain show cause with the proposed punishment, petitioner has given reply to the show cause and the disciplinary authority has not found satisfactory to the show cause reply and thereafter order of punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the disciplinary authority, has preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Eastern Zone and against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision against the penalty of compulsory retirement from service awarded by the as provided under the statute and the original authority has also confirmed the order of punishment vide order dated 25.2.2003, against which the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

6. Grounds taken by the petitioner is that the order of punishment is disproportionate to the charges. The enquiry officer has conducted enquiry without appreciating defence of the petitioner and as such finding given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse. It is submitted that on the basis of the perverse finding, order of punishment will be vitiated in the eye of law.

7. The Enquiry Officer without any eyewitness to the occurrence has proved the charge against the petitioner, hence the order of punishment is absolutely improper and is not sustainable in the eye of law.

8. On the other hand the opposite party has supported the order passed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the memo of charge has been issued against the petitioner against serious allegation of commission of corruption i.e. taking gratification from truck drivers and when pocket of the petitioner was searched, amount more than Rs.10/- which is permissible to a CISF personnel by way of pocket money, was found from the pocket of the petitioner and as such article of charge has been issued against the petitioner on the basis of such allegation.

9. Regular disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner has been provided with opportunity of hearing i.e. to make his defence, cross-examine witnesses, etc. and thereafter the Enquiry Officer after appreciating the submission of the petitioner, has found charge proved.

10. The finding of the Enquiry Office was forwarded before the disciplinary authority and after accepting it has issued second show cause notice to the petitioner, the petitioner has given due reply to the second show cause which has found to be dissatisfactory by the disciplinary authority and thereafter as provided under Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 the authority thought it proper to impose punishment of compulsory retirement.

11. The authoriti