By the Court—This special appeal arises out of judgment dated 4th October, 2005, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 52958 of 2004, dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner appellant against the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as a result of Departmental Enquiry.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed as Driver on 5th December, 1978, at Narora Atomic Power Station, Narora, District Bulandshahr, and was promoted as Driver Grade-II, a Class-Ill post, in the year 1997. One Sri R.K. Thawait, Assistant Manager Recruitment made a complaint to the disciplinary authority that the petitioner appellant attempted to assault him on 11th December, 1998 in the evening hours at a lonely place near Community Center causing bleeding from mouth and nose and swelling on the face of Sri Thawait. He was also medically examined on 12th December, 1998, by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Narora. He also lodged a complaint/FIR at Narora Police Station. Ultimately a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on 10th March, 1999 containing two charges and after holding a regular Departmental Enquiry the inquiry report dated 15th December, 1999 was submitted holding both the charges proved against the appellant. The copy of the enquiry report supplied to the petitioner appellant vide letter dated 10th January, 2000, whereafter the appellant submitted his reply dated 1st February, 2000. After considering the entire material, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 9th March, 2000 against the proposed punishment of dismissal. Ultimately, the order of dismissal dated 20th September 2000 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The appellant filed an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 5th January, 2001. Thereafter Writ Petition No. 9928 of 2001, was filed by the appellant before this Court, challenging the dismissal as well as the Appellate Order. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 11th August, 2004, holding that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as approved by the Disciplinary and Appellant Authority cannot be said to be based on substantial evidence to sustain the extreme penalty of dismissal from service and, accordingly, the dismissal order as well as the Appellate orders are quashed. However, the Hon’ble Court remitted the matter back with the following directions :

“Accordingly it will be safe to refer the matter to the punishing authority to look into the matter in the light of the evidence as exist on record and taking into account the observation as has been made in this judgment. Needless to say that decision as has been cited in respect to the argument that punishment should not be shockingly disproportionate will also be taken note of. Thus, the punishing authority is to take into account the totality of circumstances, existence of substantial evidence to sustain the charges and then to form opinion about proof of charges and quantum of punishment if any is to be given. The authority is not to be influenced by the earlier decision taken against the petitioner and fresh consideration is to be made strictly in accordance with the consideration and observation as has been made in this judgment. As the matter as already prolonged it is to be observed that the fresh decision is to be taken by the disciplinary authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

3. The Disciplinary Authority reconsidered the matter and vide its order dated 11th November, 2004, held both the charges proved agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as referring to other material available on record, and again imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The appellant, challenging the dismissal order dated 11.11.2004, filed the writ petition, which has been dismissed by judgment under appeal.

4. We have heard Sri M