The punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense of having excess pocket money.

JUDGMENT

Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

'to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the letter No. B15015/CISF/ANU/SS/2010/1907, dated 29.3.2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, as illegal and arbitrary (ii) declare the order of the appellate authority order No. V15014/LR/Appeal/IJ/SS/2010/570 dated 30.07.2010 received by the petitioner on 21.08.2010, as illegal and arbitrary (iii) declare the order of the Revisional Authority Order No. V-11014/112/L&R/2010-642 Dated 16.5.2011 received by the Petitioner on 27.5.2011, as illegal and arbitrary and (iv) consequently set aside the proceedings with a further direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and to pass such other or further orders.......'

2. Brief facts of the case are that:

The petitioner was joined as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'CISFT') on 2.3.1998 and was transferred to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant in the month of July, 2007. On 18.07.2009 while he was working in the B-Shift and performing the duty on Vehicle Material Checking duty at B.C. Old Out Material Gate from 13.00 hours to 21.00 hours, after reporting for duty, he was deployed to perform tender duty at civil construction office at opening of the tenders. As per orders of Shift In-charge, the petitioner has assisted two duty officers viz., HC-GD B Talukdar and Lady Constable Kum Meenakshi. While the petitioner was on duty, he was called to a spot where the Commandant was standing with one leg on piece of concrete stone and upon his reporting, questioned about the money kept under the stone and asked as to whom it belongs to. Then the petitioner replied in negative since he is not aware of any money being kept there by anybody. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to shift office where they recovered a sum of Rs. 32/- from the pocket of the petitioner and there the petitioner explained that he carried Rs. 40/- out of which Rs. 8/- were spent for his personal consumption. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension with Memorandum of charge.

It is further stated that on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.08.2009. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 4.11.2009 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his written representation on 24.2.2010 to the 2nd respondent. Being not satisfied with the same, the 2nd respondent, vide impugned final order, dated 29.03.2010, had awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pension and gratuity with immediate effect and further ordered that the period of suspension from 18.7.2009 to the date of receipt of that order will be treated as Suspension Only (NON-DUTY). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General-1st respondent on 26.04.2010 and vide order dated 30.07.2010 confirmed the punishment and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 21.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 30422 of 2010 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 8.12.2010 dismissed the writ petition and given liberty to the petitioner avail alternative remedy available under Section 9(2)(A) of the CISF Act, by preferring a revision to the Directorate General. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a revision petition and the same was rejected vide order No. V-11014/112/L&R/2010-642, dated 16.05.2011, which was communicated to the petitioner on 27.05.2011. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the Deputy Commandant, who instituted the D.E. was of considered