Page No.# 1/19 GAHC010112112020 2025:GAU-AS:10385 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3427/2020 NO. 055130963, SRI HIREN BORO S/O- KANDRA BORO, R/O- DONGPAR, P.O. BORIMAKHA, P.S. BARBARI, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781333 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE BLOCK NO. 1 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE NORTH EASTERN SECTOR STONEY HEAVEN BISHOP COTTON ROAD SHILLONG MEGHALAYA- 793003 4:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GHY G.S.ROAD AMERIGOG 9TH MILE GHY-23 Page No.# 2/19 5:THE COMMANDANT- 10 BN CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE HOWLI BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781316 6:THE COMMANDANT- 179 BN CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RESHIPORA P.S. ZAINAPORA DIST.- SHOPIAN JAMMU AND KASHMIR C/O 56 AP Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, MR. P MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MS. B SARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 29.07.2025 Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has sought for the following relief(s): - “It is, therefore; prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to call for the records, call upon the respondents to show cause as to why i) Enquiry Report dated 20/08/2017, ii) the order of Commandant dated 31/08/2017, iii) the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Guwahati dated 20/03/2018, iv) the order of Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector, Shillong dated 18/07/2018 and modified order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the DIG (Admn), North Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong shall not be set aside and quashed and after showing cause, after hearing the parties, after perusal of Page No.# 3/19 records be pleased to set aside and quash:- 1) Enquiry Report dated 20/08/2017, ii) the order of Commandant dated 31/08/2017, iii) the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Guwahati dated 20/03/2018, iv) the order of Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector, Shillong dated 18/07/2018 and modified order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the DIG (Admn), North Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong and/or pass such other order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;” 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding are noticed as below: - As projected in the writ petition, basing on a complaint lodged by one Inspector (GD), Mithilesh Kumar, who was the Company Commander of the unit wherein the petitioner was posted, a preliminary enquiry, came to be ordered in the matter. The preliminary enquiry report, having demonstrated commission of misconduct by the petitioner herein, and therein, also involvement of other force members coming to the forefront, the Commandant 10thBn, CRPF, as the disciplinary authority, proceeded to issue a Memorandum dated 18.03.2017, proposing to hold a joint enquiry against the petitioner, herein, and 7(seven) other members of the force. One Article of Charge came to be framed against the petitioner herein, vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017. Although the said Memorandum of Charge had 4 Article of Charges, in relation to the petitioner herein, there was only one charge framed i.e. Article of Charge No. 3. The Article of Charge No. 3 pertains to an allegation leveled against the petitioner of having conspired and joined against in a mutiny against an Officer Commanding C/10 Bn, CRPF i.e., Ins.(GD) Mithilesh Kumar. After issuance of the said Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, the disciplinary authority proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer in the matter as well as a Page No.# 4/19 Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer, on entering into the enquiry, issued notices to the petitioner for appearing before him. Accordingly, on the appearance of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, a preliminary enquiry was held on 01.05.2017, wherein, the petitioner was explained the charge in a language understood by him and he had submitted that he had understood the charge so framed against him. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 20.08.2017. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, vide communication dated 31.08.2017. The petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry report and therein, denied the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, considered the materials coming on record in the enquiry report as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner, herein, and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the allegations leveled against him and that he deserved punishment. The charge leveled against the petitioner was so held to have been established by the enquiry officer, by contending that the petitioner herein, on being instigated by Pratap Ram and Naba Kalita, had participated in the said protest and thereafter, had sat on the field and had started calling the Commandant. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, herein, penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 15.11.2017. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of penalty of removal from service imposed upon him preferred an appeal before the designated Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Office, CRPF, Guwahati, vide order dated 20.03.2018; on considering the appeal submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the same by holding that the appeal was bereft of any merit. In the said order of the Appellate Authority, it was provided that it is permissible for the petitioner to prefer a revision in the matter within 30 days before the Inspector General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF. The petitioner, accordingly, on 17.04.2018, preferred an application praying for revision of the penalty imposed upon him, invoking the provisions of Rule 29 of the Page No.# 5/19 Central Reserve Police Force, Rules, 1955 (In short, the Rules of 1955). The Revisioning Authority, upon considering the revision petition submitted by the petitioner along with the contemporaneous records, was pleased vide order dated 18.07.2018 to hold that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were duly proved in the enquiry and the petitioner did not have any right to remain in the force. The Revisioning Authority however, taking into account the length of service rendered by the petitioner, his socio-economic condition, number of dependents as well as the requirement of nurturing and upbringing of minor kids held that, the imposition of extreme penalty like removal from service on the delinquent to be severe, accordingly, taking a lenient view, the Revisioning Authority, in terms of the power conferred under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, proceeded to set aside the order dated 15.11.2017, issued by the Disciplinary Authority along with the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority. On interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Revisioning Authority modified the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to that of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 12 years. It was further provided that the petitioner, during the period of his reduction shall not earn increments of pay and that on the expiry of the period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. In terms of the order passed by the Revisioning Authority, the Commandant 178 Bn, CRPF, proceeded to reinstate the petitioner in the service of the Battalion of the force w.e.f. 14.08.2018. Further, the period w.e.f. the date of imposition of removal from service i.e. w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 13.08.2017 was directed to be treated as period spent ‘not on duty’. The office of the Inspector General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF, i.e. the Revisioning Authority of the petitioner, vide order dated 27.03.2019, partially modified/amended the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, vide the order dated Page No.# 6/19 18.07.2018 and reduced the pay of the petitioner by 10th stages from Rs. 33,300/- to 25500/- i.e., the minimum of the scale in level-4, for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 15.11.2017. It was further provided that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the currency of the period of reduction and on expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner being aggrieved has instituted the present proceedings. 4. Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, has submitted that against the petitioner herein, only one Article of Charge of having participated in a mutiny against the Officer Commanding, came to be framed against him. Mr. Chauhan, has submitted that a perusal of the evidences coming on record, including the depositions made by the witnesses it would be revealed that no material adverse to the petitioner herein, with regard to the incident that had occasioned on 01.12.2016, was brought on record. He submits that the evidence against the petitioner is that he, on being asked to shout by Pratap Ram, he started shouting along with other members of the force. He submits that one of the witnesses, Head Constable (GD) Bipin Kumar had also made his statement to the effect that the petitioner, herein, along with others had assaulted him because; he and one ASI (GD) Akman Ali had stopped them from proceeding towards the Officer Commanding. 5. Mr. Chauhan, has further submitted that Head Constable (GD) Victor Beck during his deposition in the enquiry had deposed of the act of the petitioner in assaulting constable Bipin Kumar and had added that the petitioner had uttered the words that he is a surrendered extremist and he would kill him. Mr. Chauhan has further submitted that the materials brought on record would also go reveal that the petitioner was, at the said point of time, was not carrying arms. Mr. Chauhan submits that in addition to the said evidences coming on record, there is no further materials brought on record against the petitioner herein. Mr. Chauhan has further submitted that the allegation, which was leveled against the petitioner, was of being involved along with others in a mutiny against Page No.# 7/19 the Officer Commanding and, there was no allegation leveled against the petitioner of having assaulted any member of the force. 6. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the enquiry report, has submitted that therein, the enquiry officer had only drawn a conclusion to the effect that the petitioner along with others had assaulted a personnel and other personnel had followed them. There was no other conclusion drawn against the petitioner in the matter. Mr. Chauhan has thereafter, by drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 15.11.2017, passed by the disciplinary authority has submitted that with regard to the petitioner, herein, the disciplinary authority had drawn a conclusion to the effect that the petitioner, herein, had helped and participated in the chaos that was created by Pratap Ram and Naba Kalita and had also made hue and cry against the Officer Commanding. The disciplinary authority, further, proceeded to draw a conclusion that the petitioner, herein, had kept arms and also slapped Head Constable (GD) Bipin Kumar and had also uttered that he was a surrendered terrorist and did not fear anybody and while assaulting Bipin Kumar, he had said “ You Bihari, came to Assam and doing Hulliganism”. 7. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that although there was no allegation leveled against the petitioner about his past conduct, the disciplinary authority had drawn a conclusion to the effect that the petitioner, herein, had earlier clashed with other personnel and threatened them with loud voice, which demonstrated indiscipline and the Company Commander had warned him earlier in writing. Accordingly, the petitioner was held to deserve punishment. Mr. Chauhan submits that it is on the said premises that the petitioner, herein, was imposed with penalty of removal of service w.e.f. 15.11.2017. Mr. Chauhan submits that although in the appeal, the petitioner has raised all the above grounds; however, the appellate authority had rejected his appeal, without proper appreciation of the materials coming on record against the petitioner which had clearly not indicated the requirement of any punishment upon him. Mr. Chauhan submits that the petitioner having approached the Revisioning authority. The Revisioning authority, vide Page No.# 8/19 order dated 18.12.2018, while upholding the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority against the petitioner, had interfered with the penalty by holding that the penalty of removal from service was too severe and thereafter, had proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, a penalty of reduction to lower stage in a time scale of pay for a period of 12 years with cumulative effect. 8. Mr. Chauhan submits that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, in the light of the materials coming on record is clearly disproportionate and would mandate interference in the matter. Mr. Chauhan further reiterates that the allegation of having assaulted Bipin Kumar, not having been so leveled against the petitioner, it was not permissible for the disciplinary authority to draw any conclusion with regard to the same, without framing a Charge in the matter against the petitioner. Mr. Chauhan further submits that the allegation of assault upon the said Bipin Kumar was only leveled against Naba Kalita and Pratap Ram vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017. In the above premises, Mr. Chauhan submits that the penalty as now imposed upon the petitioner by the Revisioning Authority, vide order dated 18.12.2018, would mandate an interference in the matter. 9. Per contra, Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents after taking this Court through the materials coming on record in the enquiry, as well as the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, has submitted that the enquiry officer had drawn a conclusion against the petitioner herein, of having been involved in the assault of said Bipin Kumar. She submits that the said conclusion was so drawn, basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry. Further, Ms. Sarma submits that the petitioner having had a history of commission of such assault on fellow members of the force, the same was also noticed by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report. Ms. Sarma submits that basing on the materials coming on record, the disciplinary authority, vide the order dated 15.11.2017, had drawn a conclusion that the petitioner herein, was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him vide the Memorandum of Charge in question. She Page No.# 9/19 submits that the conclusions as drawn by the disciplinary authority in the said order dated 15.11.2017, on a perusal, would go to reveal that the same is based on the materials coming on record. Accordingly, she submits that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force and his conduct not being in consonance with that expected from such member of a disciplined force, the penalty of removal of service imposed upon the petitioner would not mandate any interference by this Court. 10. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner in the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, being relevant, is extracted herein below: - “ STATEMENTS OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO. 941180225 HC/GD PRATAP RAM, NO. 915134702 CT/GD NABA KALITA, NO.060062126 CT/GD RAJU KUMAR DEKA, 035134484 CT/GD JITU DAS, NO.055130963 CT/GD HIREN BORO. NO. 055131006 CT/GD VIJAY BASUMATARY, NO.065133056 CT/GD BALINDER DAS AND NO.055132021CT/BUG PRADEEP UPADHYAY OF C/10 BN, CRPF. ARTICLE-I That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn, CRPF disobeyed lawful order of superior in which he was detailed to proceed Group Centre, CRPF Kathgodam but, he refused to perform said Govt. duty. Thus No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/IC Bn, CRPF committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955. ARTICLE-11 That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn used abusive languages & threatened No. 041656587 INSP/GD Mithilesh Kumar, Officer Commanding C/10 Bn CRPF to kill him. Thus No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naha Kalita of C/10 Br. CRPF committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955. ARTICLE-III Page No.# 10/19 That on 01/12/2016, No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram, No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita, No.060062126 CT/GD Raju Kumar Deka, No. 035134484 CT/GD Jitu Das, No.055130963 CT/GD Hiren Boro, No. 055131006 CT/GD Vijay Basumatary, No. 065133056 CT/GD Balinder Das and No. 055132021CT/BUG Pradeep Upadhyay OF C/10 BN, CRPF Caused, inspired and joined in a mutiny against Officer Commanding C/10 Br, CRPF. Thus they committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955. ARTICLE-IV That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn assaulted No. 903053712 ASI/GD Md. Akman Ali, and No. 943331693 HC/GD Bipin Kumar(duty NCO) and threatened to kill them by putting their service rifle at their chest. Thus No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn, CRPF be committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955.” 12. A perusal of the charges so framed in the Memorandum of Charge, would go to reveal that against the petitioner, herein, only Article of Charge No. III was so framed. 13. A perusal of the Article of Charge No. III, would go reveal that the petitioner, herein, had conspired and joined in a mutiny against Officer Commanding of the unit, on 01.12.2016, along with 7(seven) other members of the force. 14. A perusal of Article of Charge No. IV would go to reveal that the allegation leveled therein, was against Pratap Ram and Naba Kalita, members of the force of the said unit, of having assaulted ASI (GD) Md. Akman Ali and Head Constable(GD) Bipin Kumar. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not involved in the said Article of Charge no. IV and there is no allegation leveled against him of having assaulted either ASI (GD) Md. Akman Ali and or, Head Constable(GD) Bipin Kumar. 15. Given the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner and the involvement therein of others, a joint enquiry was contemplated under the Memorandum Page No.# 11/19 of Charge dated 18.03.2017 against 8 persons. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant 10thBattalion, CRPF, vide order dated 12.04.2017; directed for a joint departmental enquiry against the petitioner and 7 others and appointed an Enquiry Officer for the purpose. Further, a Presenting Officer was also appointed for the purpose. The Enquiry Officer held a preliminary enquiry on 01.05.2017, and the petitioner on being explained the charge, he had contended to have understood the same. 16. A perusal of the evidences brought on record by the departmental witnesses, would go to reveal that the participation of the petitioner in the chaos that had occasioned on 01.12.2016, comes to the forefront. Inspector (GD) Mithilesh Kumar, during his deposition has deposed that the petitioner, herein, had shouted loudly that he is a surrendered extremist and he does not fear anybody and can kill them. The said witness had further brought on record, the past conduct of the petitioner herein, by deposing with regard to the earlier incidents of assault committed by him on other members of the force. Further, the deposition of ASI (GD) Md. Akman Ali, brings on record the fact that the petitioner had participated in the chaos that had occasioned on 01.12.2016. The evidence of Head Constable (GD) Bipin Kumar brings on record the fact that the petitioner, herein, had slapped him along with Naba Kalita and Raju Deka and pushed him towards the floor, for which he had sustained injuries on his shoulder and cheek. The witness also reiterates that the petitioner had uttered the words that he is a surrendered extremist and also would kill him saying “You Bihari, commanding us”. The statements made by Head Constable (GD) Bipin Kumar, during the enquiry were reiterated by Head Constable (GD) Victor Beck, who also stated the words that were uttered by the petitioner at the time of occasioning of the incident involved. 17. The enquiry officer, in his report, with regard to Article of Charge No. III, drew a conclusion to the effect that the petitioner along with Naba Kalita and Pratap Ram had assaulted a personnel of the force and the petitioner, herein, was also involved in such assault earlier. Page No.# 12/19 18. The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the materials coming on record in the enquiry, the enquiry report and the stand of the petitioner, herein, vide order dated 15.11.2017, in respect of the petitioner, herein, drew the following conclusions. vi. Indiscipline committed by Force No. 055130963 CT/GD Hiren Boro CT/GD Hiren Boro on 01/12/2016 when HC/GD Pratap Ram and CT/GD Naba Kalita instigated the personnel of the company then this personnel CT/GD Hiren Boro helped and himself participated. He raised hue and cry against CO. As per the statement of INSP/GD Mithilesh Kumar; HC/GD Bipin Kumar, HC/GD Victor Beck and CT/GD Hiren boro kept arm and he slapped HC/GD Bipin kumar. Further he said I am a surrendered terrorist. I do not fear anybody and assaulted him saying "you bihari came to Assam and doing hooliganism". CT/GD Hiren Boro earlier clashed with other personnel and threatened them and talk in loud voice which is indiscipline and once company commander warned him in written. The statement in defence submitted by him is without any substance. Thus CT/GD Hiren Boro committed grievous offence. However, in 12 years of service he has no adverse records but this offence is reverse. CT/GD Hiren Boro deserve punishment. 19. Basing on the said conclusions so drawn, the disciplinary authority, vide the same order, proceeded to impose the following penalty upon the petitioner: - “vi. Force No. 055130963 CT/GD Hiren Boro has been removed from service from the office order dated 15/11/2017 and removed from the service of battalion.” 20. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted an appeal in the matter, however, the Appellate Authority i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Office, CRPF Guwahati, vide order dated 20.03.2018, on consideration of the materials placed before him, proceeded to reject the said appeal and thereby hold the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted a Revision Petition before the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, North-eastern Sector, invoking the provisions of Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The Revisioning Authority vide order dated 18.07.2018, with regard to the allegations leveled against the petitioner and the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority thereon, concluded that the Page No.# 13/19 allegations leveled against the petitioner were proved in the enquiry and the petitioner, on account of the act of indiscipline and misconduct committed by him had lost his right to remain in the force. 21. The Revisioning Authority, however, considering the mitigating circumstances i.e., the unblemished length of service of 12 years rendered by the petitioner in the force, his socio-economic condition, his dependent family members, need for nurturing and upbringing of minor kids, proceeded to take a lenient view in the matter and held that imposition of the extreme penalty like removal from service on the petitioner, would be too severe. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority was interfered with and a modified penalty to the following effect came to be imposed upon him. : - “REDUCTION TO A LOWER STAGE IN THE TIME SCALE OF PAY FOR APERIOD OF TWELVE YEARS. HE WILL NOT EARN INCREMENTS OF PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF REDUCTION AND THAT ON THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD; THE REDUCTION WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF POSTPONING HIS FUTURE INCREMENTS OF PAY.” 22. The modified penalty now imposed upon the petitioner requiring his reinstatement in his service, the petitioner was posted to 178th Battalion of the CRPF, however, the Revisioning Authority in the said order dated 18.07.2018, proceeded to hold that the period of service of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his removal from service i.e., w.e.f. 15.11.2017, till the date of immediately preceding the date of his reporting to the unit he is posted to, would be treated as ‘period not spent on duty’, however, the intervening period was condoned for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits. 23. With regard to the manner in which the pay and allowances of the petitioner is to be regulated w.e.f. 16.11.2017 to the date of reinstatement, the Revisioning Authority granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner to pass appropriate orders in the matter. The said order of penalty was further modified by the office of the Inspector Page No.# 14/19 General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF, vide order dated 27.03.2019 and the penalty now imposed upon the petitioner was of reduction of pay by 10 stages from Rs. 33,300/- to 25500/- in the pay matrix level-4 for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 15.11.2017. It was further held that the petitioner will not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and that, on expiry of the period; the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 24. It is a settled position of law that normally in exercise of power of judicial review, a writ Court will not substitute its own judgment or decision for the judgment or decision of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and/or the Revisioning Authority; unless it is found that the conclusion that the conclusions so drawn has shocked the concise of the Court, or the punishment is such that no reasonable man would impose upon a delinquent or, the decision is so absurd that the decision maker, at the time of making the decision, must have taken leave of his senses. 25. This Court, while exercising its power of judicial review in respect of the conclusions arrived at in a disciplinary proceeding, does not sit as an Appellate Court over the findings of the disciplinary authority and this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on its own, basing on the evidences brought on record unless, it is found that the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority in the matter is perverse to the materials available on record. 26. In the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Appellate Authority is also vested with co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. The relevant conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this connection, being relevant is extracted herein below: - Page No.# 15/19 “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion. upon consideration evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. 18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to Page No.# 16/19 consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 27. Having noticed the position of law with regard to the power of this Court, in relation to exercise of its powers of judicial review of a disciplinary proceeding, this Court would now examine the issue arising in the present proceeding. 28. On a perusal of the Article of Charge no. III, it is seen that the allegation leveled against the petitioner is to the extent of having participated in a purported mutiny along with 7 other members of the force, on 01.12.2016, against the Officer Commanding C/10 Battalion, CRPF. Although, in the said Memorandum of Charge, a specific allegation with regard to assault of Md. Akman Ali and Bipin Kumar was so leveled however, the said allegation was not leveled qua the petitioner but, was so leveled against two other delinquents, Pratap Ram and Naba Kalita. 29. In the enquiry, the materials that had come on record was to the effect that the petitioner had also assaulted Bipin Kumar and had also uttered words, which were unbecoming of a member of a force. The disciplinary authority in his order dated 15.11.2017, against the petitioner, had drawn a conclusion that he had raised hue and cry against the Officer Commanding of the Battalion along with the other members of the force. The further conclusion drawn was, to the effect that the petitioner, herein, had assaulted HC (GD) Bipin Kumar and had uttered words unbecoming of a member of a force. The disciplinary authority thereafter also referred to the earlier incidents of commission of assault by the petitioner, herein. It is on the basis of the said conclusion Page No.# 17/19 drawn, including the conclusion with regard to the petitioner having assaulted Bipin Kumar, that the disciplinary authority had arrived at a decision for imposition of the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. 30. What is to be noted here is that there was no allegation leveled against the petitioner in the Memorandum of Charge of having assaulted said Bipin Kumar. The said aspect of the matter was borne out in the enquiry out of the statements of the departmental witnesses. The above being the position, the petitioner herein, could not have been imposed with a penalty also for the allegation of having assaulted HC (GD) Bipin Kumar, inasmuch as, there was no charge leveled against him in this connection, in the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017. 31. It is a settled position of law that a person can be held guilty only of the allegations leveled against him in the Memorandum of Charge and not for anything he was not charged in the Memorandum of Charge, issued towards initiating a disciplinary proceeding against him. 32. The conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority, with regard to the participation of the petitioner along with the other personnel of the Unit, in a chaos that had occasioned on 01.12.2016 and of raising hue and cry against the Officer Commanding, would not require an interference; however, the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority with regard to the assault made by the petitioner on said Bipin Kumar, cannot be sustained inasmuch as, no charge thereon was framed against the petitioner herein. 33. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the penalty of removal from service as imposed upon the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance. Consequently, the said penalty would mandate interference from this Court. 34. The Revisioning Authority, having only upheld the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority, including the conclusion that the petitioner, herein, had assaulted said Bipin Kumar, the said part of the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority Page No.# 18/19 being a conclusion drawn beyond the charge framed against the petitioner, cannot be permitted to be reckoned for the purpose of imposing any penalty upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the modified penalty imposed upon the petitioner, herein, by the Revisioning Authority would also mandate interference. 35. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above, the order dated 18.07.2018 along with the modified order dated 27.03.2019, passed by the Revisioning Authority and the order dated 15.11.2017, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, in connection with the petitioner herein, stands set aside. 36. Having interfered with the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, herein, this Court, remands back the matter to the disciplinary authority for arriving at a decision as to whether a fresh proceeding is required to be initiated against the petitioner including therein, a charge of having assaulted Head Constable (GD) Bipin Kumar. The disciplinary authority shall arrive at a decision thereon, within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event, a decision is arrived at to proceed against the petitioner, also for the allegation of having assaulted Head Constable (GD) Bipin Kumar, by instituting a fresh departmental proceedings, in the matter, the same be initiated and concluded expeditiously. 37. In the event, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is of the view that no fresh proceedings against the petitioner, also basing on the allegation of having assaulted Head Constable (GD) Bipin Kumar, is to be initiated against him, the disciplinary authority shall by considering the materials coming in record in the enquiry held qua the Article of Charge no.III framed against him vide the Memorandum Of Charge dated 18.03.2017, pass fresh orders with regard to the punishment that would now be called upon to be imposed upon the petitioner and would in this connection consider the penalty imposed upon the delinquents who were also charged vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, only for the allegation forming part of Article of Charge no.III and pass appropriate orders imposing upon the petitioner fresh penalty as would be mandated Page No.# 19/19 within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 38. In both the circumstances, either wherein, a fresh proceeding is directed to be justified against the petitioner in terms of the liberty granted, hereinabove, and or if no fresh proceedings is so decided to be instituted against the petitioner, the manner and method in which the service benefits of the petitioner would be regulated w.e.f. 15.11.2017 i.e. the date of removal of the petitioner till the date of his reinstatement that has occasioned on 14.08.2018 shall be so considered and orders in this connection be passed along with the orders of fresh penalty that would now be issued to the petitioner, herein, in terms of the directions passed by this Court, hereinabove. Till such orders are passed by the disciplinary authorities, the petitioner shall be continued to be extended his service pay and allowances in the manner it is being so extended as on date. 39. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant