Departmental findings are liable to be set aside if they are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore material exculpatory evidence, especially when eyewitness testimonies are contradictory and essential corroborative evidence, such as medical reports for physical assault, is absent.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer:

“to issue a writ of certiorary or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the order No V 11014(1)/SZ/LC/SWS/05/1028 dated 19/21-2-2005 of the 3rd respondent by which the revision petition dated 21.12.2004 submitted by the petitioner was rejected and the orders passed by the 4th and 5th respondent removing the petitioner from the service were confirmed as arbitrary, illegal, violative principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to take the petitioner into service within a specified time and also grant him all consequential benefits including pay and allowances, promotions that will accrue on that basis and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

02. Heard Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel, representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and perused the record.

03. The petitioner, while working in CISF Unit CPM Panchgram, was issued a Memo dated 07.03.1992 alleging that he had assaulted and slapped No.711320404 ASI/Exe Sri Darshan Singh, which constituted misconduct under Section 18 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act. Pursuant thereto, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the said allegations. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, submitted a report holding the charge as proved. Based on the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. respondent No.5, passed an order bearing No.V 15014/DP-34/(4)/Ad.I/92/GHP dated 17.09.1992, imposing the penalty of reduction of pay in the present grade from Rs.1125/- to Rs.975/- for a period of two years with effect from 01.10.1992, with cumulative effect.

04. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, DIG, NEZ, Patna. The Appellate Authority issued a showcause notice dated 27.04.1993 proposing enhancement of the penalty to removal from service. After submission of the petitioner’s explanation, the matter was transferred to the DIG, SZ, Madras i.e. respondent No.4, who, by proceedings No.V-15014/1/7/93-A6(SZ)/9544 dated 31.10.1993, confirmed the enhanced penalty of removal from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12236 of 1994, which was partly allowed by order dated 22.12.2003, directing reinstatement into service. Aggrieved thereby, the Department preferred W.A.No.1815 of 2004, wherein, by order dated 23.11.2004, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge without expressing any opinion on merits and directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of revision.

05. In compliance therewith, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition dated 21.12.2004 before the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, by proceedings No.V-11014(1)/SZ/LC/SWS/05/1028 dated 19/21.02.2005, rejected the revision and confirmed the penalty of removal from service. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

06. It is the case of the petitioner that the sole allegation against him was that he had slapped Sri Darshan Singh, who was examined as PW6 in the enquiry. According to PW6, the alleged incident occurred in the presence of Sri P. Durai Raj, Sri R.B. Yadav, Sri K.C. Kalita, and Sri A.K. Dey. These four witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW4, along with Sri T.V.V. Sharma as PW5. It is contended that all the witnesses, except PW2