ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent ProceedingsNo.15015(1)/05/SMR/KTR/L&R(SZ)/ 18- 8064 dated 17.12.2015 for compulsory retirement of service with full pensionary benefits dated 01/02.07.2015, the 1st respondent rejected vide Order No.V-11014/21/L&R/2016-1138, dated 26.09.2016 revision filed by the petitioner dated 02.04.2016 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Service Rules apart from being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for petitioner, and Mr. GRS. Akhileswar, learned counsel representing, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents.

3. Brief facts:

Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force on 24.03.1996, transferred to Uranium Corporation India Limited (UCIL), Jaduguda, Jharkhand. Later, transferred to Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant, while working at Steel Plant for alleged misbehavior with one of his colleagues wife on 07.03.2015, proceedings were taken up. A complaint was lodged with Commandant on 08.03.2015, forwarded on 09.03.2015 for preliminary enquiry and at preliminary stage, PWs.1 to 8 were examined as witnesses including CWs.1 and 2 and DWs.1 and 2. Statements of petitioner and other witnesses were recorded and are part of enquiry report. Petitioner alleged that a copy of preliminary enquiry report was not served upon him and that order of suspension dated 13.03.2015 was issued by Senior Commandant. Case of petitioner is that, suspension order does not speak or contain any reasons as to the basis on which the punishment is imposed.

4. On 28.03.2015, a Charge Memo was issued for submitting statement of defense. Explanation was submitted on 06.04.2015, denying charges. By order dated 17.04.2015, enquiry under Article 36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2001’) was proposed. One Smt. Chaya Adak Ghosh was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 24.04.2015, statements of PWs.1 and 2 were recorded and after enquiry, a brief note of Presenting Officer was forwarded to Enquiry Officer on 09.05.2015. Petitioner was asked to make a representation against brief note, petitioner submitted his representations on 11.05.2015 and also on 28.05.2015. By proceedings dated 19.06.2015, enquiry report was submitted to Commandant and a copy of report was served on petitioner, remarks were offered by way of representation dated

23.06.2015.

5. On 01.07.2015, Disciplinary Authority passed final orders disagreeing with the findings of enquiry report and exonerated the petitioner of charge(s). Suspension order, dated 13.03.2015 was revoked on 02.06.2015. Period of suspension from 13.03.2015 to 01.06.2015 was directed to be treated as “Duty”

for all purposes.

6. Show cause notice dated 27.08.2015 was issued to petitioner by DIG, South Zone, invoking suo-moto review power under Rule 54 of the Rules, 2001 alleging petitioner guilty of charges and proposing imposition of penalty of “Dismissal from Service”, received by petitioner on 07.09.2015.

7. In the Show cause notice, it was stated that in view of contradictory statements made during preliminary enquiry and formal enquiry, Disciplinary Authority ought not to have placed relevancy on the statement of PW.3 and could not have exonerated the official.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that, proposal to impose penalty of dismissal from service for the charge(s) after a full-fledged enquiry and exoneration by the disciplinary authority not proper. That show cause notice dated 27.08.2015 issued by invoking the suo motu review power is without any basis and bereft of any new facts. It is submitted that DIG/South Zone/CISF, Chenn