JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Barua, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents. 1. Order of dismissal from service by the Disciplinary Authority in a duly constituted enquiry on 27.5.1998 which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 14.7.1999 are under challenge, seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the orders as aforesaid and on setting aside, a Writ of Mandamus has been sought for reinstatement in service with full back wages. 2. Factual background of the case in brief is as follows: The writ petitioner joined Central Industrial Security Force (In short CISF hereinafter) as Constable on 5.8.1989. While he was posted as Security Guard at CISF Unit of Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad on 21.8.1997, an incident took place and he was asked to answer the following charges after being put under suspension. The Articles of charge numbering three as under: Article-I Misconduct and indiscipline in that on 21.8.1997 at about 2100 hrs. while food distribution in the ORs mess was going on, No. 894522394 Const. S.K. Hazarika of CISF Unit NPM Jagiroad threw the degchi containing Sabji (Rajma), created nuisance in the mess and quarreled with No. 7738260 Naik A.C. Talukdar (Mess Commander). Article-II Gross misconduct and disobedience of lawful orders in that No. 894522394 Const. S.K. Hazarika was in drunken condition and refused to get medical examination done when order by Insp./Exe. B. Mahanta. He created nuisance, misbehaved with Insp/Exe. B. Mahanta by shouting loudly with un-parliamentary language at two places i.e., on 21.8.1997 at 2130 hrs. at main-gate and on 21.8.1997 at 2200 hrs in the coy office of NPM Jagiroad. Article-III Gross misconduct, indiscipline of order in that. No. 894522394 Const. S.K. Hazarika disobeyed the orders of D.C. on 21.8.1997 at 2240 hrs and denied to get medical examination done on the same day at 2305 hrs. 3. The articles of charge was issued after the preliminary enquiry held against the incident occurred whereby the petitioner threw the degchi containing sabji resulting in nuisance in the mess and being not satisfied with the explanation put forwarded by him, the aforesaid articles of charge was served on him and he had filed the written statement in defence denying the charges. Initially I.S. Saini of Nagaon Paper Mill Was appointed as Enquiry Officer and on administrative reasons he was replaced by Shri A.K. Mitra of CISF Unit, Nagaon Paper Mill, who was directed to hold the enquiry. 4. The Enquiry Officer issued notice on 13.11.1997 notifying the Inquiry scheduled to be held on 26.11.1997 at 1000 hrs. at CISF Unit, NPM, Jagiroad, alongwith other instructions as contained in the notice. Accordingly enquiry started as scheduled and wanted to know from the charged delinquent as to whether he had any objection in the matter of holding the departmental enquiry. The reply being in positive the Enquiry Officer returned the file to the competent authority, i.e., the Disciplinary Authority for change of the Enquiry Officer as desired by the delinquent. The Disciplinary Authority issued an order on 9.12.1997 rejecting the objections as desired by the delinquent holding that the service rules provides that any representation against the appointment of Enquiry Officer on ground of bias should be made before the commencement of the enquiry and since he had failed to represent at the earliest any reasonable ground of change of Enquiry Officer, hence requested to complete the enquiry with an assurance to the charged delinquent to give all reasonable opportunity to defend his case. 5. Since the objections raised by the delinquent being turned down the Enquiry Officer started the enquiry on 23.12.1997 and in presence of the delinquent the following officials who had been cited in the articles of charge as witnesses to prove the imputation of misconduct were examined viz.; PW-1 No. 774360207 Naik A.C. Talukdar. 2. PW-2 No. 963510736 Constable Rajesh Joseph. 3. PW-3 No. 753240010 Insp/Exe. B. Mahanta. 4. PW-4 No. 914480242 SI/Exe. P.K. Sarma. 5. PW-5 No. 7214487HC/GD M.D. Jena. 6. PW-6 Shri S.K. Hazra, Dy. Commandant. 7. PW-7 No. 7517302 HC/GD G.A. Goud. In order to prove the imputation of misconduct the following exhibits were produced: PW-3/Ex.P-1 GD No. 782 to 789 dated 21.8.1997 at 2205 hrs. onwards regarding the incident proved by PW-3. PW-4/Ex.P-1 Report dated 22.8.1997 submitted by SI/Exe. P.K. Sarma, Mess Secretary, PW-4. 6. On the other hand the delinquent had produced three witnesses in defence to dislodge the imputation of misconduct leveled against him. The delinquent had also gave statement in his defence on 26.1.1998. The witnesses so cited are as follows: DW-1. No. 884659195 Constable A.C. Gogoi. PW-4/Ex.P-1 Report dated 22.8.1997 submitted by SI/Exe. P.K. Sarma, Mess Secretary, PW-4. 6. On the other hand the delinquent had produced three witnesses in defence to dislodge the imputation of misconduct leveled against him. The delinquent had also gave statement in his defence on 26.1.1998. The witnesses so cited are as follows: DW-1. No. 884659195 Constable A.C. Gogoi. DW-2 No. 963510657 Constable C. Kumareshan. DW-3 No. 884659112 Constable H.K. Bharali. 7. In regard to charge No. 1, PW-1 Naik A.C. Talukdar stated before the Enquiry Officer that for the month of August, 1997 he was the Mess Commander. On 21.8.1997 at about 2045 hrs. PW-2 Rajesh Joseph was distributing food and for sometime he was absent as he went to take food and as a result PW-1 was distributing the food, then Shri S.K. Hazarika came to take food and on seeing the vegetables he had asked why the vegetables contained so much of Tari. In reply PW-1 answered that he had given all materials but the" cooks had put more water. In the meantime PW-2 came and took over the distribution of food from PW-1 and PW-1 left the place. Thereafter when PW-1 came back he saw some vegetable lying near the Patila and on query from PW-2, PW-2 told him it was the charged official who fell the vegetables. 8. In support of charge No. 1, PW-2 stated before the Enquiry Officer that while he was distributing food on 21.8.1997 the charged official came to take his food. On seeing more water in the vegetables and for taking out thick vegetables he had lilted the Patila with one hand and with other hand was giving sabji in the Messtin and in the process vegetable fell down from the Messtin of the delinquent. After some time PW-1 came and on enquiry PW-2 replied that it was S.K. Hazarika who fell the vegetables. On query from the Enquiry Officer PW-2 replied that he did not report the matter in detail to the Mess Commander PW-1. 9. PW-3 in his deposition before the Enquiry Officer has deposed that he was the Coy Commander of the Coy. On 21.8.1997 at about 2210 hrs. HC MD Jena PW-5 informed him over phone that the charged official on the influence of liquor had quarreled with Mess NCO Naik A.C. Talukdar PW-1 and threw away the Rajma Sabji. 9. PW-3 in his deposition before the Enquiry Officer has deposed that he was the Coy Commander of the Coy. On 21.8.1997 at about 2210 hrs. HC MD Jena PW-5 informed him over phone that the charged official on the influence of liquor had quarreled with Mess NCO Naik A.C. Talukdar PW-1 and threw away the Rajma Sabji. On receiving the aforesaid information PW-3 immediately informed Deputy Commandant and himself rushed and picked up SI P.K. Sarma to the unit line mess PW-3 had himself saw a good quantity of Rajma sabji was lying on the floor and the patila was topsy turvey. On enquiry he was informed by Battalion Havildar Major and Mess NCO that Constable S.K. Hazarika being under the influence of liquor pushed he Patila. In cross-examination the witness replied in positive that large quantity Rajma sabji fell from Patila. 10. In the enquiry PW-4 has deposed that he was the Mess Secretary of the said mess. On 21.8.1997 at around 2100 hrs. while he was taking food, Coy Commander Inspector B. Mahanta came and ordered him to come to Unit lines saying that some incident had taken place in the ORs Mess. Both B. Mahanta and PW-4 arrived at the mess and on enquiry from PW-1 came to know that the Patila which contained vegetables was pushed by the charged official and PW-4 himself saw sabji was lying on the floor and the charged official was not available in the mess for confirmation. 11. The Enquiry Officer examined PW-5 M.D. Jena who has deposed that on 21.8.1997 PW-1 told him that the constable Shri S.K. Hazarika had pulled down the utensil containing dal. Thereafter he had accompanied PW-1 and visited the unit mess and saw some dal was flying on the ground. On a query from the enquiry office the witness replied that the vegetable was from Patila. 12. The Deputy Commandant of the Unit Shri S.K. Hazra PW-6 has deposed that on 21.8.1997 at around 1015 hrs. Inspector B. Mahanta PW-3 informed him over phone that the charged official at about 0900 hrs. (night) went to unit mess for taking his food. The delinquent alleged that Rajma Sabji was not properly cooked and got irritated and started argument with Naik A.C. Talukdar, PW-1 and immediately thereafter he had turned down the Rajma Sabji which had been confirmed by all the witnesses. 13. (night) went to unit mess for taking his food. The delinquent alleged that Rajma Sabji was not properly cooked and got irritated and started argument with Naik A.C. Talukdar, PW-1 and immediately thereafter he had turned down the Rajma Sabji which had been confirmed by all the witnesses. 13. The Enquiry Officer has examined Shri G.A. Gour PW-7 who has deposed that on 21.8.1997 at around 2230 hrs. he had presented the check-toll call when Assistant Commandant and Deputy Commandant were present. The delinquent official and PW-1 Shri A.C. Talukdar were called in the roll call for enquiry. The charged official was ordered to sit in the vehicle by the Dy. Commandant. Coy Commander B. Mahanta ordered three Havildars to make Constable Shri S.K. Hazarika to sit in the vehicle. After that as per order PW-7 went to see the barrack and mess area for search but Shri S.K. Hazarika was not found and accordingly he informed the officials. 14. The charged official was given opportunity to cross-examination by the Enquiry Officer. The charged official did not put any question to PW-1. However, the delinquent has asked PW-2 to clarify as to whether he had misbehaved with him at mess to which PW-2 replied with negative. In another question PW-2 replied that the situation of mess was peaceful while the charged official was taking food. The Enquiry Officer in clarification asked PW-2 as to whether he had informed mess Commander (PW-1) that constable Shri S.K. Hazarika threw down sabji to which he replied in the positive. 15. The delinquent official had asked PW-3 in his cross-examination whether PW-3 had made any GD entry while he visited the or mess. In reply PW-3 had stated that he had made GD entry being No. 782 to this effect. In another question the charged official asked that while PW-3 visited OR's mess and found Rajma Sabji lying on the floor what was his reaction to that effect as to whether the sabji fell down from Patila or by other means to which PW-3 had replied that Sabji fell down from Patila. In another question in regard to the incident as to whether anybody complained him against the charged official about consuming liquor, the reply was 'no'. In another question in regard to the incident as to whether anybody complained him against the charged official about consuming liquor, the reply was 'no'. In order to clarify the charged official asked question as to whether he was absent from unit line before the incident to which the reply was he has not received any such report. In another question PW-3 clarified that Dy. Commandant arrived at barrack at 2240 hrs. vide GD No. 783 but not at 2215 hrs. as put by the charged official. The charged official asked that as per the statement of PW-3, he could identify the smell of liquor from his mouth. Charged official has further asked whether he would be able to identify the smell of anything from mouth, to which he replied that anybody can confirm that at least in case of liquor. No other questions were put to PW-3. 16. In regard to cross-examination of PW-4, the charged official asked to clarify about the position of. Patila while he visited the ORs mess. PW-4 replied that Patila was in turn over position. In further question the charged official asked as to whether PW-4 had seen any one taking food in mess while he visited the spot and interact with them. The reply came from PW-4 was that he had seen some CISF Personnel taking food but he did not talk with them. It may be pointed out at this stage that when PW-4 was examined by the Enquiry Officer in presence of charged official, PW-4 replied to the first question that Inspector/Exe. B. Mahanta (Coy. Commander) N.K. A.C. Talukdar, (Mess NCO) and Constable Rajesh Joseph (mess helper) were present in the mess while he visited the spot. In further questions PW-4 confirmed that Constable S.K. Hazarika refused the order of Inspector/Exe. B. Mahanta for medical checkup. 17. The charged official cross-examined PW-5. In cross-examination PW-5 was asked as to whether both side of the unit gate were locked or not, while Dy. Commandant and Insp/Exe. B. Mahanta were in Coy Office. In reply PW-5 stated that the gate towards fire barracks was locked from 6 P.M. as per the standing instruction and front side gate was remained open at that time. In another question PW-5 replied that he did not talk with CISF personnel having their food in mess while he visited the mess. B. Mahanta were in Coy Office. In reply PW-5 stated that the gate towards fire barracks was locked from 6 P.M. as per the standing instruction and front side gate was remained open at that time. In another question PW-5 replied that he did not talk with CISF personnel having their food in mess while he visited the mess. The Enquiry Officer had put questions in presence of charged officials to PW 5 to which he replied that Sabji was thrown away from Patila and to another question PW-5 replied that the charged official refused to go for medical checkup as ordered by Dy. Commandant. 18. In reply to question put up by the charged official PW-6 stated that Rajma Sabji was prepared excess in water and quantity of two mugs Rajma Sabji was found scattered on the floor. In another question PW-6 stated that liquor is not issued in CISF arid chances cannot be ruled out for habitual drunkers to collect liquor from outside. PW-6 has further stated that no one reported him that the charged official was seen while consuming liquor on that day but on the basis of allegation, having doubt upon some one can not be wrong. PW-6 has further deposed that the charged official did not meet him for the second time on that day. 19. PW-7 was cross-examined by the charged official to which he replied that he was standing in 3rd line of roll call and as per order of Insp/Exe. B. Mahanta he alongwith other CISF personnel went inside the barrack to bring the charged official but he was not found. To a query by the Enquiry Officer, PW-7 replied that he has no knowledge whether the charged official mounted on Jeep or not. 20. The defence has examined three witnesses to dislodge the case of the Department. DW-1 Shri A.C. Gogoi in support of the charged official has deposed that on 21.8.1997 at about 20.45 hrs the charged official went to mess for having his food and after about 8-10 minutes DW-1 went to mess for food wherein the charged official told him that Tarka Dal' fell down from his hand and DW-1 took his food without Tarka Dal. Thereafter the charged official went out of the barrack for having pan. Thereafter the charged official went out of the barrack for having pan. Even after 15 minutes the delinquent did not come and therefore he alongwith Constable M.K. Bharali went to Coy office wherein they have found that there was hot exchange of words between the delinquent and Insp/Exe B. Mahanta. who has charged the delinquent that it is he who had thrown away sabji from the Patila in mess. In support of the charged official, DW-1 and Shri M.K. Bharali argued that Sabji fell down from the 'Mestin' of the charged official. Both DW-1 and M.K. Bharali were asked to leave the Coy office. Thereafter there was roll call and during roll call the Inspector/Exe. B. Mahanta made allegations that it was the charged official who threw Sabji to which 3/4 CISF Jawans denied the allegations. Thereafter Dy. Commandant ordered the charged official to mount on jeep but the driver of the jeep was not available. The charged official returned from jeep and left for barrack. Thereafter, Asstt. Commandant Thomas Mathew ordered DW-1 to call the charged official and when he went to call the charged official, the charged official was attending nature's call and told that he would come after two minutes. When he was waiting for the charged official, 3/4 CISF personnel came and asked about the delinquent to which DW-1 informed that the charged official was not there. After a while the charged official came from latrine and changed his dress. Both of them came to Coy office and met Dy. Commandant for proceeding to medical check up whereas Dy. Commandant told them to sleep in the barrack. 21. In order to clarify certain query, the Enquiry Officer asked DW-1 as to whether he was present in the mess while the charged official was taking food and he answered in the negative. In another question asked by the Enquiry Officer as to whether he heard the order of the Dy. Commandant for medical examination the reply came in the positive. Then the next question came as to whether the said order was carried out. In reply to the said question DW-1 replied that the charged official came to comply with the order but Dy. Commandant refused to conduct medical examination. Commandant for medical examination the reply came in the positive. Then the next question came as to whether the said order was carried out. In reply to the said question DW-1 replied that the charged official came to comply with the order but Dy. Commandant refused to conduct medical examination. In another question put by Enquiry Officer as to whether the charged official reported that the driver of the jeep was available or not, DW-1 replied that it was not necessary to report to the Dy. Commandant that the driver was available or not since they were not ordered to do so. 22. In defence the charged official examined C. Kumareshan as DW-2 who has deposed that on 21.8.1997 at about 2045 hrs. while he reached at mess for taking food, he found the delinquent official was standing at the place of distribution. Some quantity of sabji was lying on the floor. Constable Rajesh Joseph was distributing food. On a query, the charged official told him that sabji fell down from his 'Mestin'. After taking food DW-2 went to his barrack. There was an emergent roll call held, where charged official was also present. At the time of roll call Dy. Commandant ordered the charged official for medical examination. The charged official went towards jeep and after talking with BHM, he left for unit line. DW-2 was cross-examined by the charged official and put up two questions, viz., whether any one was available near the jeep to which he replied in the negative and in another question he replied that the behaviour of the charged official was normal. 23. The Enquiry Officer put certain questions to DW-2. The first question DW-2 was faced as to whether the charged official took food before his arrival in mess. In reply DW-2 has said that he was taking food. In another question DW-2 replied that Jeep was placed 4/5 mtrs. away from roll call which was visible to everyone. At last DW-2 stated that he was not aware as to whether the delinquent was medically examined or not. 24. The last witness, i.e., DW-3, examined by the charged official was Constable H.K. Bharali in support of defence who deposed that on 21.8.1997 at about 2045 hrs. DW-3 AND Constable A.C. Gogoi were sent to inform the charged official to the mess for frying. 24. The last witness, i.e., DW-3, examined by the charged official was Constable H.K. Bharali in support of defence who deposed that on 21.8.1997 at about 2045 hrs. DW-3 AND Constable A.C. Gogoi were sent to inform the charged official to the mess for frying. After about 8/10 minutes when both of them went for food they met the charged official who told them that Tarka Sabji fell down from his messtin. So they ate untried dal and went to the lines. The charged official then went out of barrack for bringing pan. After 10/15 minutes when the Charged Official did not return, both of them came down and saw arguments were going on in between the charged official and Inspector/Exe. B. Mahanta Coy. Commander who was making allegations against Constable S.K. Hazarika that he threw down Sabji from Patila in OR mess. On the other hand Constable S.K. Hazarika refuting the allegations stated that Sabji fell down from his messtin. On seeing them the Inspector/Exe. B. Mahanta asked them to go out form Coy office. After a while hearing the sound of siren they came down. During the fall in Dy. Commandant ordered Constable S.K. Hazarika to get up in the jeep and accordingly he went towards jeep. The charged official cross-examined him and put questions as to whether he has seem anybody near by the jeep to which he replied that he had not seen any one near the jeep and in another question he replied that his behaviour was normal as in other days. 25. The Enquiry Officer put questions to DW-3 in presence of charged official to which DW-3 replied that he was not present when Constable S.K. Hazarika was taking food at OR mess. In another question DW-3 replied that the jeep was visible since the jeep was placed ten to twelve steps away from the place of roll call. 26. The Enquiry Officer has dealt with each article of charge separately alongwith the evidences on record in detail holding that the delinquent official came into mess to have his food on 21.8.1997 at about 2100 hrs. while food distribution was going on. These facts have been corroborated by all the witnesses including the Defence Witnesses. 26. The Enquiry Officer has dealt with each article of charge separately alongwith the evidences on record in detail holding that the delinquent official came into mess to have his food on 21.8.1997 at about 2100 hrs. while food distribution was going on. These facts have been corroborated by all the witnesses including the Defence Witnesses. The Rajma Sabji having found in excess water, he started argument with mess commander creating nuisance and threw down the Dagchi/Patila containing sabji on the floor and thereby nothing remained to be distributed to the other members of CISF. The aforesaid statements have been corroborated by the prosecution witness, more particularly PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 whereas the contentions raised in defence that the sabji fell down from the mestin has not been corroborated, inasmuch as, no defence witness was present at the time of distribution of food. Therefore the Enquiry Officer in his report has held that Article of charge-I is proved against the charged official. 27. In regard to Article of Charge-II, the Enquiry Officer after threadbare discussion in regard to the incident and the information communicated thereon by A.C. Talukdar to H.C.M.D. Jena, who in turn informed the same over phone to Insp/Exe. B. Mahanta was found to be corroborated by the statements of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. On receipt of the aforesaid information B. Mahanta alongwith P.K. Sarma came to the mess and found the charged official on the road and asked him to come to the main gate. While enquiring about the incident, the charged official started shouting loudly and misbehaved with B. Mahanta which has been corroborated by PW-3 and PW-4 and by documentary evidence Ext-I produced by PW-3 vide GDE No. 782 at 2205 hrs. on 21.8.1997 and the said fact has not been denied by the defence witnesses since they were not present at the main gate and this fact has not been denied by the charged official. The charged official misbehaved with B. Mahanta under the influence of liquor. He was asked to go for medical check up which he has refused. Therefore the Enquiry Officer has held that Article of Charge-II is proved against the charged official. 28. In support of Article of Charge-Ill the prosecution has laid the foundation that after the incident the matter was informed to Dy. Commandant Shri S.K. Hazra over phone who alongwith Asstt. Therefore the Enquiry Officer has held that Article of Charge-II is proved against the charged official. 28. In support of Article of Charge-Ill the prosecution has laid the foundation that after the incident the matter was informed to Dy. Commandant Shri S.K. Hazra over phone who alongwith Asstt. Commandant Thomas Methew arrived at the unit barrack at about 2240 hrs. and enquired into the matter. P.K. Sarma and BHM HC M.D. Jena were asked to call the charged official to the Coy Office. After a while PW-6 was reported by SI/Exe. P.K. Sharma and H.D.M.D. Jena to ask the Charged Official to come to Coy. Office. This fact is corroborated with the statement of PW-3, PW-4 PW-5 and PW-6. In order to substantiate the above facts, documentary evidence was produced by PW-3 vide Ext. GD No. 783 dated 21.8.1997 at 2250 hrs. Thereafter surprise roll call was conducted, and the charged official alongwith others attended the roll call which has been corroborated by PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 and admitted by DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. The charged official was ordered to get up in the jeep for medical examination. This fact is corroborated with the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 and DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. But the charged official refused to abide by the order and left toward barrack which has been corroborated PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. In defence DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 deposed that the charged official, in fact went towards jeep but the driver was not available on the spot. Considering in its entirety the Enquiry Officer has held that Article of Charge-Ill is proved against the charged official and the said enquiry report was accordingly submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and a copy of the enquiry report had been sent to the charged official in order to enable him to make representation against the findings recorded. 29. On receipt of the enquiry report, the charged official submitted a representation on 4.4.1998 before the Disciplinary Authority, against the findings of the Enquiry Officer, raising various facts and law which was not considered by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority on 27.5.1998 considered the enquiry report alongwith the representation submitted by the charged official and after a threadbare discussion held as under: ... The Disciplinary Authority on 27.5.1998 considered the enquiry report alongwith the representation submitted by the charged official and after a threadbare discussion held as under: ... In respect of Article of Charge-I, II and III in question, after going through PWs depositions and documentary evidence which are available on record in the form of Exhibits, I find that the three charges as leveled against the charged official have been sufficiently substantiated by the PWs. The prosecutions witnesses in support of charges in question to a great extent have given in corroborative statement with a little deference here and there which I consider are, of insignificant nature. I cannot escape noticing that the charged official despite repeated efforts by the administration evaded to go for medical checkup apparently with motive to avoid detection about his consuming liquor (Daru) by the medical authorities as I infer. The sequence of action taken immediately (without waste of time) after the occurrence of the incidence in question was reported and thereafter whole administrative machinery involving senior ranking officers like Sub-Inspector, Inspector, Asstt. Commandant, Dy. Commandant coming into action by reaching at the spot witnessing all by themselves and thereafter deposing leads to establish justifiably the misconduct what has been contained in the articles of charges above. I read on record that there were so many dining members who had their meals in the mess and went away peacefully to their barracks, so I cannot find any reason why such reporting of misconduct did not arise in the case of others but only against the charged official. The versions of DWs and depositions made by them before the Enquiry Officer as explained above to the defence of charged official in respect of articles of charges in question I find that they do not lead to defend the charged official's misconduct on merits. That statements also differ as to who sent whom. The depositions made by them do not have also required relevancy to the charges in question. The DWs have not produced any supporting evidence about their depositions. The depositions of DWs in relation to the charges in question on merits seem to be a well rehearsed deposition prepared in combination which is more of a nature of a tutored statement aimed to dodge and mislead justice. The DWs have not produced any supporting evidence about their depositions. The depositions of DWs in relation to the charges in question on merits seem to be a well rehearsed deposition prepared in combination which is more of a nature of a tutored statement aimed to dodge and mislead justice. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances what have appeared during the course of enquiry I find that all the three charges in question have been proved and prosecution evidences what all have surfaced during the course of enquiry are available on file adequately meet the standard of proof required in the departmental proceeding for the purpose. 30. Therefore the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of power under Rule 29-A read with Schedule-II of Central Industrial Security Forces Rules, 1969 (for short CISF Rules, 1969), concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer imposed punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect vide order dated 27.5.1998. In the aforesaid order it has been ordered that the charged official shall not be paid anything more than what has already been paid to him for the period he remained under suspension. It has been ordered that a copy of the order of dismissal dated 27.5.1998 be supplied to him in order to enable him to prefer an appeal within 30(thirty days) to the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, NEZ Hqrs, Calcutta from the date of receipt of the order. 31. The departmental appeal as provided under Rule 42 of the CISF Rules 1969 has been availed of on 7.6.1998 wherein and whereby the delinquent official raised various facts, more particularly charge No. 1. The Article of Charge No. 1 relates to throw away of Degchi containing sabji (Rajma) by the charged official thereby creating nuisance in the mess resulting in quarrel with Naik A.C. Talukdar. In support of the same he has referred the evidences of two witnesses, viz., A.C. Talukdar, PW-1 and Shri Rajesh Joseph, PW-2 and contended that if the evidence of two witnesses are scanned then also there cannot be found that the facts have been proved. It has been further contended that with regard to the other two Article of Charges the prosecution have miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore prayed for setting aside the order of punishment of dismissal from service as awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. 32. It has been further contended that with regard to the other two Article of Charges the prosecution have miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore prayed for setting aside the order of punishment of dismissal from service as awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. 32. The Appellate Authority took up the appeal submitted by the charged official alongwith the relevant records including the evidence of witnesses of the prosecution and the defence. The Appellate Authority has discussed the Articles of charge alongwith the evidence and recorded as under vide order dated 14.7.1999: I have carefully gone through the appeal petition of the appellant, case file and other related documents held on record. I find that the appellant was given reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to defend his case. There are no irregularities noticed while conducting the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority awarded him the right penalty as per the offence committed by the appellant. Further, the appellant has not put-forth any cogent reason before the Appellate Authority to consider his case. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide his final order No. V-I5014/DTPS/l)iscV 98/2475 dated 27.5.1998. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is rejected being devoid of merits. 33. The aforesaid two orders dated 27.5.1998 (the order of dismissal) and order dated 14.7.1999 (order passed by the Appellate Authority) are under challenge in the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the same. 34. Opening the argument, Shri P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner took up the case slowly and steadily and the discrepancies of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses in establishing the factum of misconduct as contained in Article of charges. He has drawn the attention of Article of Charge No. 1 as well as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who were the witnesses in respect of charge No. 1. The evidence of these two witnesses, if read together, has destroyed the very genesis of charge contained in Article-I. But in spite of the discrepancy, the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have accepted the finding of guilt which is contrary to the evidence on record and therefore urged that the Article of Charge-I has not been proved by the prosecution and hence liable to be set aside and quashed. 35. 35. In regard to Article of charge No. II Shri Tiwari has lead this Court to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 which relates to drunken condition of the charged official. No prosecution witness has supported the case though the Enquiry Officer relied on the evidence of PW-3 Shri B. Mahanta who is not an eye witness and therefore the finding is perverse and on this ground alone the interference with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority is required to be interfered with in the interest of justice. 36. The Charge No. III which relates to disobedience of the order of Dy. Commandant, Shri Tiwari has urged that there is no evidence available on record to show that the charged official has disobeyed the order. The defence witnesses examined have totally destroyed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which laid the foundation of misconduct as contained in Charge No. III. The above fact of defence witness has been ignored both by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority resulting in miscarriage of justice in the matter of awarding punishment in a disciplinary proceeding and therefore urged that the punishment cannot be sustained under the law. 37. Shri Tiwari has laid emphasis on Rule 47(2)(b) and (c) of 1969 Rules wherein a mandatory duty is vested on the Appellate Authority to give reasons independently applying its mind on the basis of evidence available on record. He further submits that a bare reading of the order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the award of punishment would show that there is total non-application of mind in absence of a finding as to whether the findings against the delinquent official are justified and whether the penalty imposed is excessive or adequate. The order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained being passed mechanically which the Rule say otherwise. 38. The order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained being passed mechanically which the Rule say otherwise. 38. Shri Tiwari has further laid emphasis upon Section 10 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 ('the Act') read with Rule 31 of 1969 Rules which speaks of awarding of penalty for good and sufficient reason, though good and sufficient reason has not been defined in the rules but aid can be taken from Section 8 of 1968 Act which speaks that penalty of removal can be awarded only if the delinquent is found to have discharged his duty in a careless and negligent manner, which is absent in the instant case and therefore interference is required to subserve the cause of justice. 39. Mr. Tiwari has drawn the attention of the court to Section 18 of the Act, 1968 read with Rule 31 of 1969 Rules, whereby the Disciplinary Authority has been empowered to act only when any member of the Force is found guilty of any violation of duty or willful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order made by a supervisory officer or who shall withdraw from the duties of his officer without permission or who being absent on leave, fails without reasonable cause, to report himself for duty on the expiration of the leave or who engages himself without authority in any employment other than his duty as member of the Force, or who shall be guilty of cowardice, etc. A bare perusal, right from the Article of Charges alongwith imputation of misconduct would show that the petitioner is not guilty of any offence in the instant case and, therefore, urged that it is a fit case where this Court should set aside the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in exercise of power under judicial review. 40. In support of his submission Mr. Tiwari has placed reliance on the decisions mentioned herein below: (1) Union of India v. H.C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364 . (2) Nand Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1277 . (3) Rattani Lal Ex-Constable v. The State of Haryana and Ors. (1983) 2 GLR 159. (4) Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 716 . (5) State of Punjab and Ors. (2) Nand Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1277 . (3) Rattani Lal Ex-Constable v. The State of Haryana and Ors. (1983) 2 GLR 159. (4) Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 716 . (5) State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable AIR 1992 SC 2188 . (6) Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 157 . (7) Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10 . I have gone through the decisions cited above. The factual matrix of the case in hand is different from the factual matrix of the cases referred to. In a disciplinary proceeding, when the delinquent is a member of the disciplined force, cannot be allowed to take recourse to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority in a matter of disciplinary proceeding when punishment has been imposed for committing misconduct as envisaged under the rules. 41. An elaborate affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents disputing all the averments made in the writ petition contending inter alia that a preliminary enquiry was held by Inspector I.S. Saini wherein and whereunder it was found that a prima facie case existed against the charged official and thereafter only Articles of charges were framed alongwith imputation of misconduct to which the charged official filed his written statement in defence and an enquiry was proceeded accordingly, whereby he was found guilty of misconduct resulting in dismissal from service which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the charged official being a member of the Armed Force do not require to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so, such type of misconduct cannot be allowed to flourish in a disciplined Armed Force. 42. Refuting the arguments advanced by Shri Tiwari, Advocate representing the petitioner, Mr. D. Baruah, learned Central Govt. 42. Refuting the arguments advanced by Shri Tiwari, Advocate representing the petitioner, Mr. D. Baruah, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents took the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, whereby he laid emphasis that in a disciplinary proceeding under the Act and the Rules and the findings arrived at and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority cannot come under judicial review as this Court will not act as an Appellate Authority sitting over the original authority empowered under the Act and the rules and therefore urged that there is no merit in the case and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 43. The court has given an anxious consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties. Admittedly on a preliminary enquiry on the incident dated 21.8.1997, a charge sheet was served by the respondent authority with the imputation of misconduct to the effect that the petitioner on a drunken condition threw the degchi containing sabji, creating nuisance in the mess arid he has disobeyed the lawful orders of his superior authority. The enquiry proceeded by appointing the Enquiry Officer wherein the writ petitioner submitted his written statement in defence denying the charges. The prosecution examined 7(seven) witnesses in support of the imputation of misconduct while defence examined 3 (three) witnesses. A close scrutiny of the entire evidences it would appear that the Enquiry Officer took pains to examine, cross-examine and questions put to the witnesses and after considering the evidence on record the Enquiry Officer has submitted its report holding that the charges are proved. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority after taking an overall gravity of the charge and the evidence on record thought it fit to dismiss him from service which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Now the question that requires for consideration as to whether this Court would exercise the power of Judicial review in a matter of disciplinary proceeding. 44. In a catena of decisions the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising the power of judicial review, High Courts do not act as an Appellate Authority. In the case of Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618 , the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. 44. In a catena of decisions the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising the power of judicial review, High Courts do not act as an Appellate Authority. In the case of Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618 , the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that lender was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the Officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. A finding cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials, if it was a reasonable inference from proved facts. In a recent decision in Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 11 held as under: By now it is a well established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. 45. Thus, the factual finding of the Disciplinary Authority after holding a detailed enquiry and after going through elaborate evidence is not assailable under the power of judicial review unless there is a breach of principles of natural justice or the violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of record is shown. 45. Thus, the factual finding of the Disciplinary Authority after holding a detailed enquiry and after going through elaborate evidence is not assailable under the power of judicial review unless there is a breach of principles of natural justice or the violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of record is shown. This Court has gone into all aspects of the enquiry in detail and has come to the same factual finding as the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in the matter of the punishment of dismissal from service which cannot be disturbed under the power of Judicial review. The court, therefore, has no option except to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.