JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. Assailing the impugned order dated 11th July, 2007 passed by the respondent no.2 thereby holding the order passed suo-moto in review proceedings by the respondent no.3 on 20th February, 2007 thereby enhancing the punishment of removal from the service, though the initial punishment was deduction of pay scale ordered by the respondent no.4 on 10th November, 2006. 2. Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is as follows : That the petitioner joined as a Constable on 13th March, 1993 having Constable No.932332578 at Bhilai Steel Plant under the Central Industrial Security Service, Ministry of Home Affairs. Petitioner has to perform administrative duty under the supervision of the D. Company in Durgapur. On 27th May, 2005 the Commandant CISF Unit DSP Durgaur issued an order that G.D. Staff deployed in offices will wear uniform daily in the morning and P.T. dress in the afternoon. The petitioner was bewildered after receiving a letter on 18th August, 2005 to explain before the respondent authority that on 10th June, 2005 a private dumper bearing No.WB-39/1391 was reportedly loaded with nutcoke of the RMHP nutcoke, western side of DSP (D) by one Sr. R.S. Prasad Pay leader operation unauthorisedly and it passed through Gate No.2A with nutcoke without any check by CISF personnel. The incident of loading of nutcoke and passing through Gate No.2A had happened between 17:20 hours to 17:55 hours on that date. From preliminary enquiry it was found that the petitioner was seen in Gate No.2A in yellow T. shirt and gave signal to allow the dumper to go inside. On 7th November, 2005 the petitioner was supplied with the memorandum containing alleged charges against the petitioner. Against that memorandum the petitioner gave written reply on 18th November, 2005. On 10th May, 2006 the Enquiry Officer gave notice to the petitioner that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was asked to produce witnesses in his defence. Thereafter on 19th May, 2006 the name of the prosecution witnesses were furnished to the petitioner. In the preliminary hearing on 19th May, 2006 the petitioner made a prayer to produce the following defence witnesses :- (1) A.K. Arya, Company Commander, D. Company, (2) G.C. Adhikary, Crime I/C., (3) S.P. Ghosh CHM, D. Company. It is stated that petitioner also by a letter dated 29th May, 2006 asked for production of further defence witnesses. In the preliminary hearing on 19th May, 2006 the petitioner made a prayer to produce the following defence witnesses :- (1) A.K. Arya, Company Commander, D. Company, (2) G.C. Adhikary, Crime I/C., (3) S.P. Ghosh CHM, D. Company. It is stated that petitioner also by a letter dated 29th May, 2006 asked for production of further defence witnesses. Petitioner further prayed that Sri. A.K. Arya Imp/Ev as witness because he was the Company Commander of the petitioner at that relevant point of time who can ascertain that where the petitioner was discharging his duty at that relevant point of time. The petitioner also sought for G.C. Adhikary, Crime/IC as defence witness because he was in-charge of entire plant of DSP Durgapur who can enlighten where the petitioner was present at the relevant time. Petitioner also prayed for the some officers of the respondent authority to appear as defence witnesses. He also prayed for furnishing of some important document pertinent to that particular incident. Thereafter on 18th August, 2006 the petitioner was supplied with the brief note of the said case and the petitioner on 23rd August, 2006 gave written statement against the brief notice. On 7th September, 2006 the finding of Enquiry Officer was also furnished to the petitioner and thereafter on 12th September, 2006 the petitioner gave his written submission against such findings. After that on 10th December, 2006 the order of punishment was passed by the respondent no.4 the Group Commandant, C.I.S.F Group H/Q R.S. Kolkata thereby reducing the pay and cancellation of increment of the petitioner. Challenging the same the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and that appeal was returned by the appellate authority and suo-moto revision order was passed by the said authority thereby enhancing the punishment from reduction of pay scale to the ultimate punishment of dismissal. Against that the petitioner also preferred appeal before the respondent no.2, the Inspector General/NES and the respondent no.2 affirmed the order of dismissal passed by the respondent no.3 , Deputy Inspector General/ NEZ. 3. Mr. Madhusudan Saha Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority without assigning any reason returned the appeal and thereafter the respondent no.3 suo-moto made revision of the said order thereby enhancing the punishment to the extreme one, i.e. dismissal. 4. Mr. 3. Mr. Madhusudan Saha Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority without assigning any reason returned the appeal and thereafter the respondent no.3 suo-moto made revision of the said order thereby enhancing the punishment to the extreme one, i.e. dismissal. 4. Mr. Saha Roy, further drew my attention to the Rule 50 of the said “The Central Industrial Security Force Act, 2001 and emphasized on Rule 50 which prescribed as to when appeal can be withheld. He also relied on Rule 52 (2), 54, 55, 56 and Rule 31, 36 and many other Sections like Section 8 and 11 of the said The Central Industrial Security Force Act, 2001. He also relied on Rule 52 (2), 54, 55, 56 and Rule 31, 36 and many other Sections like Section 8 and 11 of the said The Central Industrial Security Force Act, 2001. Rule 50 and 52 (2) of the said Act is quoted below :- “Rule-50-Withholding of appeals-(1) The authority which made the order appealed against, may withhold the appeal if (I) it is an appeal against an order for which no appeal lies under rule 45 ; or (II) it is not in conformity with the provisions of rule 48 ; or (III) it is not submitted within the period specified in rule 47 and no sufficient cause is shown for the delay ; or (IV) it is repetition of any appeal already decided and no new facts of circumstances are adduced; Rule 52 (2)–Consideration of appeals-(2) In the case of an appeal against the order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 34, or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider (a) Whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted on the basis of the evidence on the record ; and (c) Whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is excessive, or adequate, or inadequate and pass order; (i) Confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) Remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty, or to any other authority with such directions it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case: Provided that- (i) If such enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (I) to (v) of rule 34 and an inquiry under rule 36 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of rule 39, itself hold such an inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with rule 36 and thereafter on a consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry made such orders as it may deem fit ; and (ii) If the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clause (I) to (v) of rule 34 and in inquiry under rule 36 has already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall make such orders as it may deem fit.” Mr. Saha Roy also contended that Section 11 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act empowered the authority to arrest any person on the spot of occurrence but in the present case though the respondent authority lodged a registered FIR and also initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner but they never arrested the petitioner on the spot of occurrence . 5. Mr. Saha Roy further contended that the respondent authority without going through the records but only on the basis of hearsay evidence initially held the petitioner guilty and imposed punishment to the extent of reduction of pay scale but the petitioner as being aggrieved by the said punishment preferred appeal before the appellate authority but the authority without considering the appeal on merit sent it back and thereafter the respondent no.3 suo-moto in revision imposed the capital punishment of dismissal from service which is patently illegal, absolutely arbitrary and bad in law. 6. Mr. Saha Roy further contended that despite repeated request the petitioner was not furnished with the relevant documents by the respondent authority. Not only that the petitioner was not allowed to produce witnesses from the prosecution side. 7. Mr. Saha Roy further contended that in the duty list also petitioner’s name was not mentioned that he was attached to Gate No.2A. He further vehemently urged that on that particular date and time he was allotted duty in Gate No.2 and not at Gate No.2A. 8. Mr. Saha Roy also vehemently contended that it is the standing order that during P.T. session the employees have to wear P.T. dress and during duty time they have to wear uniform. Therefore there is no question that the petitioner was wearing yellow T. Shirt on that particular date. 9. Mr. Saha Roy further vehemently argued that in the FIR the authority have only mentioned the name of one Sri Debasish but never mentioned particular Constable number of the petitioner. Therefore unless all these are proved by the prosecution producing the witnesses as prayed for the impugned punishment order as well as order passed in revision ultimately affirmed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law. 10. Mr. Therefore unless all these are proved by the prosecution producing the witnesses as prayed for the impugned punishment order as well as order passed in revision ultimately affirmed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law. 10. Mr. Saha Roy further strongly argued that non production of the witnesses and non-furnishing of the relevant documents by the respondent authority though prayed by the charged employee (Delinquent Officer) is bad in law. In support of his contention Mr. Saha Roy relied on Paragraph-5 of the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 which is quoted below :- “Para-5-Power of authorized inquiring authority to enforce attendance of witnesses and production of documents.-(1) Every inquiring authority authorized under section 4 (hereafter referred to as the “authorized inquiring authority”) shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely :- (a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any wit-end examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document or other material which is producible as evidence; (c) the requisitioning of any public record from any court or office.” On this issue Mr. Saha Roy also relied on an Apex Court decision reported in 2010 (2) SCC Page-772 Paragraphs-27,28, 29 and 30 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs Saroj Kumar Sinha). Paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 are quoted below :- “Para-28-An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the un-rebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the chares are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. Para-29-Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Para-29-Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. Para-30-When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.” Mr. Saha Roy also relied on a decision reported in AIR 2014 (SC) Page-862 Paragraph-15 (Shobha Sinha vs State of Bihar & Ors) which is quoted below :- “Para-15-Coming to the merits of the decision of the Division Bench, there was a heated debate before us about the validity of the observations of the Division Bench for non-supply of the documents and whether non-supply prejudiced the case of the appellant or not, Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant had referred to the judgment authored by one of us (S.S. Nijjar, J) in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 : ( AIR 2010 SC 3131 ), Wherein the departmental enquiry was set aside on finding that there was non-supply of essential documents to the delinquent. The court observed that when a departmental enquiry is conducted against the Government servant, it cannot be treated as a casual exercise and procedural fairness is to be shown while conducting the enquiry. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, had attempted to argue the non-supply of documents had not prejudiced the case of the appellant and the Division Bench was right in holding that the charge against the appellant was proved in view of her own notings. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, had attempted to argue the non-supply of documents had not prejudiced the case of the appellant and the Division Bench was right in holding that the charge against the appellant was proved in view of her own notings. Though, we may make tentative observation that non-supply of documents could still be necessary for the appellant to give justification and explain the circumstances in which she had made the notings in question, it is not necessary to go any further to deal with this argument as this exercise is already undertaken by the Review Committee itself. Even if we proceed on the basis that there is some kind of dereliction of duty in making the notings by the appellant made on 28th October 1993 and 17th January 1994, the more pertinent and important issue is as to what kind of charge and to what extent it is proved. That is already reflected in the report of the Review Committee in exercise which could not be ignored or glossed over by the High Court.” 11. Mr. Saha Roy also strongly argued that punishment imposed by the revisional authority is shockingly disproportionate to the charges and therefore cannot be sustained. In support of his contention Mr. Saha Roy relied on a Hon’ble Apex Court decision reported in (2003) 8 SCC Page-9 Paragraphs-6 and 7 (Dev Singh vs Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd and Another). Paragraph-6 is quoted below :- “Para-6-A perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that a court sitting in appeal against a punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings will not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty, however, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court, then the court would appropriately mould the relief either by directing the disciplinary/appropriate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation it may make an exception in rare cases and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. It is also clear from the above noted judgments of this Court, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer, then the court would interfere in such a case.” Mr. It is also clear from the above noted judgments of this Court, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer, then the court would interfere in such a case.” Mr. Saha Roy also relied on a decision of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2015 (3) CHN (CAL) Page-44 Paragraph-25 (Kartick Chandra Ghosh vs Union of India) . 12. Before parting with his submissions Mr. Saha Roy submitted that the impugned order should be set aside as no preliminary enquiry report was ever served upon the petitioner, no documents were furnished and above all no witnesses were produced as prayed for by the petitioner. 13. Per contra, Mr. Kunaljit Bhattcharya learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that pursuant to the letter dated 7th September, 2006 issued by the Enquiry Officer petitioner was asked to submit written representation within five days against the charges. The petitioner submitted his written representation on 19th October, 2006 and the disciplinary authority i.e. Group Commandant CISF Group Hqrs Kolkata after considering the enquiry and material evidence on record held the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum scale from Rs.3725/- to Rs.3050/- in the time scale of Rs.3050-4590/- for a period of five years with further orders that he will not earn increment of payment during the period of deduction and that on expiry of the deduction period this will have effect of postponement of his future increment of pay. 14. Mr. Bhattacharya further vehemently contented that Deputy Inspector General CISF NEZ Kolkata reviewed the case of the petitioner suo-moto under provisional Rule 54 of CISF Rules 2001 and considering that the penalty imposed to the petitioner was not commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner. 15. Mr. Bhattacharya further vehemently urged that show-cause notice dated 22nd December, 2006 proposing the enhanced punishment to the extent of removal from service was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted his representation and after considering this representation the Deputy Inspector General NEZ Headquarters Kolkata enhanced the penalty to that of removal from service vide order dated 20th February, 2007. 16. Mr. The petitioner also submitted his representation and after considering this representation the Deputy Inspector General NEZ Headquarters Kolkata enhanced the penalty to that of removal from service vide order dated 20th February, 2007. 16. Mr. Bhattacharya further contended that petitioner without challenging the said order by filing a revision before Director General CISF New Delhi under Section-9 (2A) of CISF Act has directly approached this Hon’ble Court by filling the present writ petition. 17. Mr. Bhattacharya further strongly submitted that before approaching this Hon’ble Court it was the preliminary duty of the petitioner to exhaust all departmental remedy available to him but without exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner directly approached this Court which is bad in law. 18. Mr. Bhattacharya also referred Rule 52 of the said rule. 19. Mr. Bhattacharya further contended that the punishment imposed by the revisional authority is not at all disproportionate considering the gravity of the charges. 20. In conclusion Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned which deserves interference by this Hon’ble Court. 21. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after perusing the records and also considering the citations (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Shobha Sinha, Dev Singh and Kartick Chandra Ghosh (supra) relied on by Mr. Saha Roy I find that despite repeated demand in writing by the petitioner to furnish the relevant records and also to produce the witnesses the disciplinary authority did not take any steps to supply those documents as well as preliminary report to the petitioner or to produce those witnesses during the proceedings although the relevant rule of CISF clearly provides for furnishing document as sought for. 22. It is also evident from the records that in the FIR only the name is mentioned not the constable number. 23. It is also cannot be ignored by the Court that in the FIR the person identified with yellow T-shirt without mentioning the constable number. It is also surprising that against the initial punishment imposed by respondent no.4 Group Commandant CISF the petitioner preferred appeal but curiously the appellate authority instead of disposing the appeal returned the same and by the order dated 20th February, 2007 suo-moto revision was made thereby enhancing the punishment from reduction of salary in minimum scale to dismissal from service. It is also surprising that against the initial punishment imposed by respondent no.4 Group Commandant CISF the petitioner preferred appeal but curiously the appellate authority instead of disposing the appeal returned the same and by the order dated 20th February, 2007 suo-moto revision was made thereby enhancing the punishment from reduction of salary in minimum scale to dismissal from service. Challenging the said suo-moto revision order of removal petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no.2 but removal order was confirmed by the respondent no.2. Admittedly enhancement of punishment to the removal from the service passed in suo-moto revision petition is patently illegal and shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 24. I also cannot ignore the fact that without complying the procedural aspects as laid down in CISF Act and Rules the authority vindictively, arbitrarily suo-moto in revision application imposed the extreme harsh punishment like dismissal from service. It is admittedly shockingly disproportionate . The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions repeatedly held that when the punishment is harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the charges then the Court has power to interfere in the proceedings. I am however mindful of the scope of judicial scrutiny of disciplinary proceedings is limited to the extent of finding out whether the delinquent was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself or whether the authority followed the appropriate service rules and/or regulations while proceeding against the delinquent thereby imposing final order of punishment like dismissal from service. Hence the action taken is exceptional and thus deserves interference by the Court. 25. Since it is evident that without supplying the documents and without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and without following appropriate service rules and regulations the harsh punishment like dismissal from service has been suo-moto imposed in revision application which has been subsequently confirmed by the respondent no.2, in my considered view such action cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 26. 26. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders dated 10th November, 2006 passed by the respondent no.4, Group Commandant , CISF H/Q, R.S. Kolkata and the order dated 20th February, 2007 passed by the respondent no.3, Deputy Inspector General/NEZ Kolkata as well as the order dated 11th July, 2007 passed by the appellate authority being respondent no.2, Inspector General/NES Kolkata cannot be sustained in the eye of law as well as facts and circumstances of the case. Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 10th November, 2006 passed by the respondent no.4, Group Commandant , CISF H/Q, R.S. Kolkata and the order dated 20th February, 2007 passed by the respondent no.3, Deputy Inspector General/NEZ Kolkata as well as the order dated 11th July, 2007 passed by the appellate authority being respondent no.2, Inspector General/NES Kolkata are hereby quashed and set aside on the touchstone of gross violation of principles of natural justice as well as for illegality, irregularities and procedural impropriety . 27. Therefore, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service for the purpose of completing the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. That proceedings shall resume from the stage of furnishing copies of the management documents to the petitioner. The authority also shall be at liberty to place the petitioner under suspension. In such circumstances, the petitioner shall be entitled to receive subsistence allowance as per rules. The petitioner shall also be entitled to 50% of his back wages during the period spent under dismissal as the petitioner could have earned his entire salary if he would have served the authority. 28. It is needless to mention that no evidence has been produced by the authority to establish that the petitioner was in gainful employment during the period of dismissal. Thus the arrears be calculated and paid to the petitioner within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is directed that the authority shall complete the disciplinary proceedings in terms of this order within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 29. The petitioner is directed to cooperate without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. 30. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.