advised 7 days bed rest. Given these circumstances, which cannot be doubted, the Enquiry Officer’s findings based entirely on a reading of the Medical Board’s opinion, in this Court’s view was unfounded. This Court also notes certain interesting features, i.e., that during the course of the same enquiry, the member of the Medical Board who supposedly conducted examination clearly stated that he had not clinically examined the petitioner (i.e. Dr. R.P. Sharma). The second interesting feature is Dr. S.R. Sharma’s statement to the effect that the pathology samples and report were not procured from the petitioner. This appears to be somewhat based on facts - the original examination report of the Medical Board (which is in handwriting) claims to record the blood parameters (serum biluribum levels direct, indirect and total). However, interestingly, the said report is written in one handwriting with a particular ball point pen; that pen appears to have been used by the three members while signing it. However, the serum biluribum parameters were left blank and filled later with ink pen. This conformed to the serum biluribum parameters which appear in the photocopy of the Jain Pathology Laboratory’s report, placed on the record. In view of the statement of Dr. S.R. Sharma and the statement of Dr. S.N. Tripathi that no clinical examination of the petitioner was in fact conducted by the Board, the Court is of the opinion that the inference is inescapable that the CISF or its officials somehow drove the situation to “fix the petitioner” for alleged misconduct which was never actually committed.
