JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. Ex-Constable Harender Singh has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 1.2.1999 passed by respondent no. 4 as well a the appellate order dated 3.4.1999 passed by respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner was removed from the service. 2. The brief facts of the case, inter alia, are that the petitioner was posted as Sepoy in C.I.S.F. at Bokaro Steel Plant; petitioner was allotted Quarter No. 1495 of Sector XI-C at Bokaro; on 26.9.1998, there was quarrel between the wife of the petitioner and the wife of Kamlesh Kumar, Cook, who are residing in the same building in different quarters; petitioner was asked, vide order dated 28.9.1998, to vacate the quarter in question; petitioner failed to vacate the quarter in question, thereafter he was chargesheeted and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 3. As per the charge memorandum, the petitioner was charge sheeted for the following five charges: Article of charge-I "No. 892294004 Constable Harender Singh (U/S) of 'J' Coy. CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro residing in Qtr No. 1495 of Sector XI-C, along with his family quarreled with No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar and his wife who are residing in Quarter No. 1497 of Sector XI-C on 26.9.98 at about 1950 hrs. Thus he has disturbed the peace and tranquility of the housing colony. This act on the part of Constable Harender Singh amounts to misconduct and indiscipline. Article of charge-II No. 892294004 Constable Harender Singh (U/S) of 'J' Coy. CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro refused to receive the quarter vacation order dated 28.9.98 at about 1235 hrs on 29.9.98 issued by the competent authority. The said act on the part of Constable Harender Singh amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders. Article of charge-III No. 892294004 Constable Harender Singh (U/S) of 'J' Coy. CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro refused to vacate the quarter no. 1495 allotted to him in Sector XI-C and thus failed to carry out the lawful order of the competent authority. The said act on the part of Constable Harender Singh amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders. Article of charge-IV No. 892294004 Constable Harender Singh (U/S) of 'J' Coy. CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro while on duty on 23.9.98 from 0500 hrs. to 1700 hrs. at Gate No. 3 of Adm. The said act on the part of Constable Harender Singh amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders. Article of charge-IV No. 892294004 Constable Harender Singh (U/S) of 'J' Coy. CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro while on duty on 23.9.98 from 0500 hrs. to 1700 hrs. at Gate No. 3 of Adm. Building assaulted one milk vendor named Shri Dhari Chand Rai at about 0900 hrs. on 23.9.98. This act on the part of Constable Harender Singh amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline. Article of charge-V No. 892294004 Constable Harender Singh (U/S) of 'J' Coy. CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro failed to improve his conduct inspite of awarding several punishments and continued to commit acts of misconduct and indiscipline." 4. The enquiry officer, on the basis of the materials available on record before him, has observed that although on 26.9.1998 when quarrel took place between the wives of the petitioner and Kamlesh Kumar Cook the petitioner was not present on the spot and was on "C" shift duty and was called back from the duty. The enquiry officer has also observed that the order dated 28.9.1998 asking the petitioner to vacate the quarter in question was received by the petitioner from the office of Coy Commandant on 29.9.1998 and having received the quarter vacation order, petitioner said to the Coy Commandant that he will speak to the senior officers as to why he is being asked to vacate the quarter. The enquiry officer has also observed that there is no eye witness of the incident that the petitioner has slapped Shri Dhari Chand Rai, milk vendor and thrown his milk on the road. He has also observed that neither Shri Dhari Chand Rai nor owner of the canteen ever appeared before him to corroborate the incident. However, the enquiry officer, Dy. Commandant, CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro, has concluded that all the five charges stand proved against the petitioner. Copy of the departmental enquiry proceeding is Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Mr. Kalra, Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, HEC, Ranchi. Thereafter respondent no. 4 has passed the impugned order dated 1.2.1999 and statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 3.4.1999. 5. I have heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Faizur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India-respondents and perused the entire record. 6. Thereafter respondent no. 4 has passed the impugned order dated 1.2.1999 and statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 3.4.1999. 5. I have heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Faizur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India-respondents and perused the entire record. 6. This is a settled principle of law that this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a matter assailing the order passed by the disciplinary authority, ordinarily should not interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority and should not act as an appellate court. However, there is caveat to it. If this Court, while hearing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, comes to a conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority are totally perverse and without any evidence and are highly improbable, then this Court cannot remain silent spectator and shall proceed to disturb such perverse and baseless findings of fact to do complete justice. 7. Undisputedly, as observed by the enquiry officer, in his enquiry report (Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Mr. M.S. Kalra, Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, HEC, Ranchi), that on the date of incident i.e. 26.9.1998, when the wives of two neighbours i.e. wife of the petitioner and wife of Kamlesh Kumar Cook, CISF were quarreling, the petitioner was away from the home in "C" shift duty and was called from the duty back to home. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioner himself ever indulged in any such fight, quarrel or misbehaved with the neighbours. There is no evidence to suggest that petitioner ever instigated his wife to have fight or to misbehave with the neighbor's wife. None of the witnesses, examined by the enquiry officer, has stated that the petitioner was present on the spot on the date of incident, rather all the witnesses have stated that he was away from the home in "C" shift duty. Therefore, Charge No. I cannot be said to be proved against the petitioner. 8. Second and third charges are pertaining to not receiving and non-compliance of the order dated 28.09.1998 whereby the petitioner was asked to vacate the official quarter. Therefore, Charge No. I cannot be said to be proved against the petitioner. 8. Second and third charges are pertaining to not receiving and non-compliance of the order dated 28.09.1998 whereby the petitioner was asked to vacate the official quarter. The enquiry officer, in his enquiry report, in so many words, has observed that the petitioner has received the order dated 28.9.1998 from the Coy Commandant from his office on 29.9. 1998 and has told that he would speak to his seniors. 9. The petitioner, while posted at Bokaro Steel Plant, was provided free accommodation. The petitioner was asked to vacate the official quarter without giving him alternate quarter merely because his wife had quarrel with the wife of Kamlesh Kumar Cook/neighbor. It is obvious that the petitioner would have asked the Coy Commandant that he will speak to his seniors to allot him alternate accommodation and meanwhile permit him to stay in the same quarter. In such eventuality, requesting seniors by CISF Jawan that he will not vacate the quarter and he will speak to the seniors, should not be treated as serious misconduct justifying dismissal from the service. 10. In the firm opinion of this Court, the basic requirement of a human being--bread, home and cloth, should not be taken away by Tuglaki farman. Asking the petitioner to vacate the house immediately and not to speak to senior for alternate house seems to be totally arbitrary and unjustified. This is no ground for extreme penalty of dismissal or removal from service. 11. As far as Charge No. IV is concerned, the enquiry officer has observed that neither milk man nor canteen owner ever applied before him to make statement to the effect that petitioner has ever assaulted him and has thrown the milk on road; there is no eye witness of the incident. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, finding the petitioner guilty on this count is totally unjustified and arbitrary and perverse. 12. Having gone through the entire enquiry report, this Court could not find any past incident of misconduct on the part of the petitioner which could justify his dismissal. On being asked, learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not point out past misconduct, penalty imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, there is no evidence or material to prove charge no. 5 as well. 13. On being asked, learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not point out past misconduct, penalty imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, there is no evidence or material to prove charge no. 5 as well. 13. Section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (for short ("the Act") reads as under:- "8. Dismissal, removal, etc., of members of the Force._Subject to the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution and to such rules as the Central Government may make under this Act, any supervisory officer may-- (i)dismiss, [remove], [order for compulsory retirement of], or reduce in rank, any [enrolled member ]of the Force whom he thinks remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same; or (ii)award any one or more of the following punishments to any enrolled member of the Force who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner, to who by any act of his own renders himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely:-- (a)fine to any amount not exceeding seven days' pay or reduction in pay scale; (b)drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty; (c)removal from any office of distinction or deprivation of any special emolument; [(d)withholding of increment of pay with or without cumulative effect; (e)withholding of promotion; (f)censure]" 14. Rule 34 of the CISF Rules reads as under:- "34. Rule 34 of the CISF Rules reads as under:- "34. Nature of Penalties.--The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on an enrolled member of the Force, namely:-- Major Penalties-- (i)dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government; (ii)removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government; (iii)compulsory retirement; (iv)reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which enrolled member of the Force was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; (v)save as provided for in clause (vii) below, reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the enrolled member will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Minor Penalties.-- (vi)censure; (vii)withholding of his promotion' (viii)reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. (ix)withholding of increment of pay; (x)fine to any amount not exceeding of 7 days' pay." 15. Having perused section 8 of the Act and Rule 34 of the CISF Rules and keeping in mind the intent of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, this Court has no hesitation to hold that penalty provided under section 8 of the Act and Rule 34 of the said Rules can only be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. As observed hereinabove, there is no iota of evidence to prove the alleged charges. Therefore, removal from service without there being any sufficient reason cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 16. As observed hereinabove, there is no iota of evidence to prove the alleged charges. Therefore, removal from service without there being any sufficient reason cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 16. It seems that higher officials of C.I.S.F. failed to do the counseling of two wives and failed to avoid quarrel between the wives of two constables by shifting one of them to other building and instead have taken extreme steps, removing the petitioner from service without no fault of him. 17. In the light of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and hence it is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith in service. Since the petitioner has not worked from the date of his removal till date, he will not be entitled for full salary during the intervening period. However, since petitioner was removed from service for no fault of him, therefore, he shall be paid Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) as lump sum compensation in lieu of full salary. Petitioner shall be granted all other consequential benefits viz, allowances, promotion, continuity of service and this period shall not be treated as break in service for any purpose.