JUDGMENT :

Sanjib Banerjee, C.J.

In view of the good grounds shown, the delay of about 194 days in preferring the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken on record.

2. The appeal is taken up for immediate consideration.

3. The appellant herein has suffered a punishment of compulsory retirement passed by the General Assam Rifles Court for the appellant having overstayed his leave without sufficient cause for a period of 439 days. At the relevant point of time, the appellant was an Assistant Commandant (MO) in the force.

4. The primary grounds canvassed by the appellant in the writ petition carried against the order of punishment and the appellate order rejecting the appellant’s appeal were that the principles of natural justice were not followed in the sense that no copy of the inquiry report or no finding of the disciplinary authority agreeing with the inquiry report was forwarded to the appellant. It is apparent on a plain reading of the writ petition that the approach of the appellant herein was as in disciplinary proceedings conducted in civilian organisations where an inquiry officer is appointed before whom the delinquent has a chance to rebut the evidence against him following which the inquiry officer’s report is dealt with by the disciplinary authority, whereupon, the disciplinary authority issues a notice to the delinquent, upon satisfying himself of the evidence against the delinquent, to consider whether to proceed to award some form of punishment to the delinquent.

5. In such disciplinary proceedings, the delinquent has a chance to adduce evidence to counter the charges levelled against him before the inquiry officer and, again, has a chance to persuade the disciplinary authority to not agree with the findings of the inquiry officer to the extent they are against the delinquent. Both at the inquiry stage and at the consideration for punishment stage, reasons are required to be recorded and the delinquent is served the inquiry report and the reasoned order of punishment.

6. In the ordinary disciplinary proceedings in any civilian government organisation, the disciplinary authority, upon receipt of the report of the inquiry officer, has several courses of action open. First, the disciplinary authority may altogether disagree with the inquiry officer’s report and find that the evidence on the charges to be completely lacking. In such a case, the disciplinary authority does not have to forward the inquiry report to the delinquent, but he merely closes the disciplinary proceedings and informs the concerned employee accordingly. Secondly, the disciplinary authority may, prima facie, agree with some of the findings and, prima facie, disagree with some others and may require the inquiry officer to reconsider the matter upon notice to the delinquent. Thirdly, the disciplinary authority may, prima facie, agree with some of the findings and, to such extent, call upon the delinquent to show-cause why he should not be punished in such regard. Finally, the disciplinary authority may, prima facie, agree completely with the inquiry officer’s findings and refer the inquiry report to the delinquent as to why the findings should not be upheld and the delinquent appropriately dealt with.

7. However, in a disciplined force as any Central Armed Police Force, the procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings is laid down in the statute governing such force or the rules framed under the governing statute. It is not necessary that every report or every finding be communicated to the delinquent. There are checks and balances to ensure that the findings rendered are confirmed by a superior official. The emphasis is