JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.231/Go dated 31.08.2015 passed by respondent No.4; whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from his service and also for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.2734/Sa.Sha dated 04.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. 3. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in JAP-1 on 27.12.2001. Subsequently, he was deputed to S.T.F Jharkhand Jaguar. During his service period in S.T.F, he was deputed with search team against Naxal at Jhoomara Pahari, Hazaribagh, where from he was trained as N.S.G Commando. Thereafter he was again sent back to JAP-1, Ranchi. While he was posted at Ranchi, a charge-sheet was issued against him with respect to selling of 7 live cartridges. There was specific allegation that he sold seven live cartridges to one Ashish Kumar Mothe after taking money; for which an F.I.R. was also lodged being Chutia P.S. Case No.230/2014. The petitioner duly replied to the charge-sheet accepting the fact that he has given seven live cartridges to Ashish Kumar Mothe in good faith who happens to be his friend and son of other police personnel; however specifically denied the charge that he has taken money or is doing business of selling of live cartages with Naxal and antisocial element. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was conducted and the petitioner duly appeared and put forth his stand. Finally, the Inquiry Officer after holding that though the petitioner has given seven live cartridges to Ashish Kumar Mothe; however, selling of live cartridges to Mr. Mothe or doing business of cartridges has not been proved. The Inquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority after accepting the enquiry report passed the order of dismissal against this petitioner. The petitioner further challenged the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority; however the same was also rejected. 4. Mr. Sheresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge is vague, inasmuch as, it has not been indicated that on what premises the petitioner has been held to be involved in business of selling of live cartridges. The petitioner further challenged the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority; however the same was also rejected. 4. Mr. Sheresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge is vague, inasmuch as, it has not been indicated that on what premises the petitioner has been held to be involved in business of selling of live cartridges. He further submits that the petitioner is not involved in business of selling or purchasing arms and ammunition or live cartridges; rather due to friendship he handed over seven live cartridges to Ashish Kumar Mothe without knowing anything about his profession; rather the petitioner became friend of Mr. Mothe due to the fact that he was son of other police personnel. Learned counsel further submits that though the Inquiry Officer in categorical words after referring the statement of Officer-in-Charge, Chutia police station, who was investigating the P.S. Case No.230/2014, has stated that it is true that the petitioner has handed over seven live cartridges to Mr. Ashish Kumar Mothe, however it has not been proved that he has received any amount in lieu of handing over seven cartridges. However, the Disciplinary Authority after accepting the enquiry report has held that the petitioner is involved in illegal selling of live cartridges which is absolutely a perverse finding. 5. Learned counsel further referred to the supplementary affidavit wherein he tried to impress this Court that the petitioner was a very efficient Officer and he was in special police force unit of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Greyhounds) which has been described as the best anti insurgency force. He further submits that this petitioner was sent to Manesar for special training of Bomb Disposal Course and during his entire service career he received 36 rewards for his good performance in service; as such, only for one misconduct of giving seven live cartridges to Mr. Ashish Kumar Mothe and that too in good faith and not handing over the same to his Superior; is admittedly a misconduct but for that termination of service is highly harsh and disproportionate. He concluded his argument by submitting that the impugned order of termination is based on conjectures and surmises and mere confession is not admissible evidence unless other evidence is required to be corroborated. 6. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. He concluded his argument by submitting that the impugned order of termination is based on conjectures and surmises and mere confession is not admissible evidence unless other evidence is required to be corroborated. 6. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , wherein it has been held that if the disciplinary authority is differing with the view of inquiry officer, a notice giving details for differing with the opinion of inquiry officer is required to be issued prior to imposition of penalty. Relevant paragraph No. 19 is quoted hereinbelow;- “19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 454 on vagueness of charge. Relevant paragraph Nos. 14to16 are quoted hereinbelow:- “14. Quite apart from that fact, it appears to us that the charges were vague and it was difficult to meet the charges fairly by any accused. Evidence adduced was perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused. 15. Shri B.D. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent, contended that no allegations had been made before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, that the charges were vague. In fact the appellant had participated in the enquiry. That does not by itself exonerate the department to bring home the charges. 16. 15. Shri B.D. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent, contended that no allegations had been made before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, that the charges were vague. In fact the appellant had participated in the enquiry. That does not by itself exonerate the department to bring home the charges. 16. It has been observed by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. that charges involving consequences of termination of service must be specific, though a departmental enquiry is not like a criminal trial as was noted by this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao and as such there is no such rule that an offence is not established unless it is proved beyond doubt. But in a departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job which nowadays means loss of livelihood, there must be fair play in action; in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences against an employee, there must be investigations to the charges consistent with the requirement of the situation in accordance with the principles of natural justice insofar as these are applicable in a particular situation.” 7. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that petitioner himself has admitted that he has handed over live cartridges to Mr. Mothe who in turn confessed before the police that he is involved in selling of cartridges to Naxal. He further submits that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was under impression that he will get the land in low cost. Therefore it can be said that the petitioner has done business of live cartridges. He further submits that it is an open-and-shut case where termination is the only punishment because a police officer is not suppose to do business with Naxal that too of selling of live cartridges. He concluded his argument by submitting that it is true that the petitioner was a good officer and has been awarded for his work but that cannot absolve him for doing business of live cartridges. 8. He concluded his argument by submitting that it is true that the petitioner was a good officer and has been awarded for his work but that cannot absolve him for doing business of live cartridges. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed and the averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that the Inquiry Officer after dealing in details with the deposition of the witnesses and the reply of the petitioner; himself came to specific finding that the petitioner has handed over seven live cartridges of A.K.47 to Mr. Ashish Kumar Mothe but was not involved in the business of illegal selling of arms and ammunition. He has further specifically held that the Officer-in-Charge-Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh of Chutia Police Station, who was occupied in investigating the police case which was lodged for the issue in question, has stated that seven live cartridges of A.K.47 was handed over by the petitioner to Ashish Kumar Mothe; however nothing is on record to show that the petitioner has taken any money from Mr. Ashish Kumar Mothe or otherwise is involved in the business of selling arms and ammunition. From record it further transpires that the Disciplinary Authority while holding the petitioner guilty, without differing with the view of the Inquiry Officer, has held that the petitioner is involved in business of selling of illegal cartridges. This makes the order perverse. Ashish Kumar Mothe or otherwise is involved in the business of selling arms and ammunition. From record it further transpires that the Disciplinary Authority while holding the petitioner guilty, without differing with the view of the Inquiry Officer, has held that the petitioner is involved in business of selling of illegal cartridges. This makes the order perverse. For better appreciation the relevant portion of Inquiry Report is quoted herein-below: ^^ijUrq foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la[;k 05@15 ds fu"iknu ds Øe esa pqfV;k Fkkuk vUrxZr dk.M la[;k 230@14 ds tkap inkf/kdkjh Jh fot; dqekj flag] Fkkuk ÁHkkjh] pqfV;k] jkaph }kjk vius c;ku esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd ,ŒdsŒ 47 dh 07 ¼lkr½ xksfy;ka vk'kh"k dqekj eksFks ds dkQh ekaxus ij gh vipkjh vkj{kh 1152 fodkl {ks=h }kjk miyC/k djk;k x;k FkkA ijUrq ;gka Li"V ugha gks ik;k gS fd mDr xksfy;ksa ds ,ot esa vipkjh }kjk iSlk fy;k x;k ;k ugha fy;k x;k rFkk ;g Hkh Li"V ugha gks ik;k fd iwoZ esa Hkh vipkjh }kjk xksyh cspus dk dk;Z fd;k gksA** Relevant portion of Disciplinary Authority is also quoted herein-below: ^^mYys[kuh; gS fd vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd fo'ks"k 'kk[kk] >kj[k.M] jkaph ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd uxj] jkaaph )kjk Ásf"kr i=ksa ds }kjk vipkjh ds voS/k xksfy;ksa ds dkjksckj esa lafyIr jgus dh iqf"V gksrh gS ftls vipkjh )kjk Hkh Lo;a vius Li"Vhdj.k esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd buds )kjk vk'kh"k dqekj eksFks dks ,ŒdsŒ 47 dh 07 pØ fn;k x;k FkkA mDr vkjksi lafnX/k vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSaA ,d vuq'kkflr cy ds dehZ dk mxzokfn;ksa ds lkFk lEidZ esa jgus okys lafnX/k O;fDr ds lkFk xksfy;ksa ds voS/k dkjksckj esa lafyIrrk ik;k tkuk vR;ar dh xaHkhj fo"k; gSaA blls okfguh ds lkFk&lkFk iqfyl cy ds fo'oluh;rk ij Hkh Á'u fpUg yxus dh laHkkouk curh gSaA bl Ádkj ds lafnX/k vkpj.k okys iqfyl dehZ dks lsok esa cuk;s j[kuk okfguh ,oa foHkkx ds fgr esa mfpr ugha gksxkA** 9. After going through the aforesaid finding of respective authorities it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority only on the basis of letter of Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police has held that the petitioner is doing business of selling live cartridges and also held that the petitioner has admitted this fact. However, the fact remains that though the petitioner has admitted that he has handed over seven live cartridges to Mr. However, the fact remains that though the petitioner has admitted that he has handed over seven live cartridges to Mr. Mothe; however, it has been categorically held by the Inquiry Officer that as per the statement of Officer-in-Charge, Chutia Police Station, who was investigating the case, the petitioner is not involved in doing business of illegal live cartridges or has taken money from Mr. Mothe in lieu of handing over the 7 live cartridges. 10. In this view of the matter; certainly, the act of the petitioner of not handing over the live cartridges to his superior after he was deputed to Ranchi from the operation; is a misconduct which cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. However, the allegation of doing business of illegal live cartridges has not been proved as such; termination of service of this petitioner is not proportionate especially in the background that the petitioner has been awarded by the Government itself to the tune of 36 awards and further he is a trained police personnel under N.S.G and Jharkhand Jaguar S.T.F; as such, in the interest of justice it is necessary that the disciplinary authority should re-visit the matter and pass a fresh order on quantum of punishment for the misconduct committed by the petitioner of not handing over the live cartridges to his superior after he was deputed to Ranchi from the operation. 11. Consequently, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.231/Go dated 31.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 and the appellate order as contained in Memo No.2734/Sa.Sha dated 04.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.3, are hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No.4, to look into the matter and pass a fresh order only on the quantum of punishment since the petitioner has not been found guilty by the Inquiry Officer of doing business of selling illegal cartridges; rather he has been found guilty for not handing over the live cartridges to his superior. 12. Since the matter is very old; as such the Disciplinary Authority shall pass a fresh order of punishment within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid finding, the instant writ application stands partly allowed.