JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. The Commandant (CISF Unit) ECL Seetalpur vide order dated 20/21.12.2005 awarded a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage with cumulative effect to the writ petitioner, a constable in the force. The petitioner’s appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority was rejected by the appellate authority on 17.02.2006. The order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were impugned in the writ petition. The Hon’ble Single Judge by a judgment dated 22.03.2011 set aside the order of the disciplinary authority relying upon the provisions contained in Clause (c) of sub-Rule (5) of Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “2001 Rules” for short). The Hon’ble Single Judge concluded :

“When acting on the representation of the Presenting Officer the Inquiring Authority concluded that the charge against the petitioner was not proved, the Disciplinary Authority could not take a view different from what the Presenting Officer took before the Inquiring Authority. By this I mean that the Disciplinary Authority presenting his case before the Inquiring Authority through his duly appointed Presenting Officer was not competent to take a different stand at the time of consideration of the report of the Inquiring Authority.

I am, therefore, of the view that the Disciplinary Authority making a stand contrary to the one taken by his Presenting Officer before the Inquiring Authority acted without jurisdiction. Accordingly, his order and the order of the Appellate Authority affirming his order both are liable to be set aside.”

2. The judgment of the Learned Single Judge is the subject matter of the present intra court appeal preferred by the Union of India.

3. CAN 3 of 2012 (Old CAN 11496 of 2012) was disposed of earlier on 03.04.2013. CAN 4 of 2018 (Old CAN 5864 of 2018) was disposed of earlier by an order dated 05.03.2021. These two applications therefore, are wrongly listed today.

4. The charge memo dated 02.08.2005 based on which the enquiry was conducted contained one charge:

“That CISF No. 944521193 Constable Sk. Ajmir of CISF Unit ECL Seetalpur (Rajmahal Camp) was detailed for "A" shift duty from 0500 hrs.to 1300 hrs on 27.12.04 at NCD Lower duty post. At about 0815 hrs on the same day Insp/Exe. S. Mukherjee conducted surprise checking in NCD lower duty post area along with Insp/Exe. S.K.Mishra, Insp/Exe.R.R.Sinha and noticed that the said Constable (Sk. Ajmir) is suspiciously talking with miscreants who were 12-13. In the mean-timeone of them namely Md. Jamshed Alamwas apprehended by HC/GD O.P. Thapa who was on PTL duty in same area. The above miscreant identified const. Sk. Ajmir during the course of interrogation stating that this constable (Sk.Ajmir) called them to steal the coal from his duty post by paying Rs.5/- per head, which clearly indicates his involvement with the miscreants. The above act on the with part of No. 944521193 Const. Sk. Ajmir tantamountsto gross indiscipline, misconduct, dereliction of duty and disobedience of lawful order being a member of disciplined Force, like CISF. Hence, the charge.”

5. The Enquiry Officer by an enquiry report on 25.11.2005 held the charge not proved. The Disciplinary Authority communicated a copy of the enquiry report to the writ petitioner by his communication dated 02.12.2005, along with his disagreement note after recording reasons for such disagreement and his own findings on the charge, which was based on the material on record before the Enquiry Officer. The writ petitioner responded to the same and after consideration of the writ petitioner’s response the punishment order dated 20/21. 12. 2005 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

6. The learned Advocate for the Union of India submits that the petitioner was proceeded against by issuance of a charge memo. An enquiry was conducted on the basis of the charge memo before the competent authority. Before the enquiring authority the departmen