This Writ Petition is instituted by a Head Constable working with the Central Industrial Security Force (henceforth referred to as ‘CISF’ for brevity), challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, Manugur, imposing on him the punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year with non-cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner there against was rejected by the Commandant, by his order, dated 18.08.2012 and the further revision preferred there against has also been turned down by the Deputy Inspector General of CISF, Hyderabad, by his order dated 31.12.2012.

At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as a Head Constable of the CISF unit attached to Heavy Water Plant, Manugur. On the intervening night of 24/25.12.2011, at about 00.30 hours, within the campus, one of the Sub-Inspectors of the Force, namely Sri P.N. Ramesh has been hit on his head by an unruly constable attached to the Force by name Sri Nitin Kumar. Immediately, the injured Sri Ramesh has been shifted to a hospital, but he succumbed to the head injury and died at about 03.45 hours. The writ petitioner was one of those who made necessary information available about the incident to the Inspector of Police, Manugur on 25.12.2011. Subsequently, it has transpired that on 19.01.2012, when the writ petitioner has been examined by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhadrachalam, he seems to have resiled from the statement made by him earlier. This conduct of the writ petitioner has been viewed seriously by the Force and he has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry. The Assistant Commandant, by his order, dated 31.05.2012, imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. When appealed against, the Commandant rejected the appeal and confirmed the said punishment and so did the revisional authority, namely the Deputy Inspector General of the Force. Hence, this Writ Petition.

Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Samir Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for the respondents.

Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner would principally contend that the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules. Further, he would contend that the petitioner has not changed his version at all and he has only deposed the actual truth before the Court concerned, but unfortunately, the local police has viewed the same as a change in his version and hence, the petitioner should not have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. It was also urged by Sri J.M. Naidu that the petitioner was not on duty when the incident took place on the intervening night of 24/25.12.2011 and hence, the question of attributing any misconduct to him would not arise.

I am afraid that not one of these contentions carry merit or conviction.

For the purpose of constituting and regulating the Armed Force for better protection and security of industrial undertakings owned by the Central Government and other industrial undertakings, the Parliament has enacted the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’). Section 3 empowered the constitution of the Force. Sub-section (2) thereof made it abundantly clear that the Force shall be constituted in such manner and shall consist of such number of Supervisory Officers, Subordinate Officers, Under Officers and other enrolled members of the Force who shall receive such pay and other remuneration as may be prescribed. Section 6 of the Act required every enrolled member of the Force to receive on his appointment a certificate in the form specified in the Schedule under the seal of the Director-General of the Force or such other Supervisory Officer as the Director-General may specify in this behalf and by virtue of the sai