IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions must adhere to established procedures, and courts will not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or the process violated natural justice.

ORDER :

(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) :

Writ petitioner is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘CISF’) and is governed by the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (Act No.50 of 1968) (for short ‘the CISF Act, 1968) and the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969. During the relevant period he was working in CISF Unit, PPT, Paradeep, Orissa State, India. For acts of indiscipline and dishonesty he was subjected to disciplinary enquiry and was found guilty and departmental penalties were inflicted. In that regard, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he filed the present writ petition with a prayer which reads as mentioned below:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.V-15014(1)/Maj-11/Disc/PPT/2k-8515 dated 16.11.2000 imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.3350/- to Rs.3200/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.3050- 75-4500 for a period of two years from the date of issue of the order, that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction with cumulative effect as illegal and arbitrary (ii) declaring proceedings No.V-11014/EZ/Ad.II/API- 09/2004/5734 dated 20.09.2004 issued by the Appellate Authority as illegal and arbitrary (iii) declaring the proceedings No.V-11011/ES/I.C/Rev.37/2005/476 dated 04.02.2006 of the Revisional Authority is illegal and arbitrary, consequently set aside the same pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.”

2. Respondents filed a counter affidavit and additional material papers.

3. Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, the learned counsel for writ petitioner and Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government submitted their earnest arguments and cited legal authorities.

4. Writ petitioner has been in service since 24.06.1989 as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force. On 14.01.2000 between 1:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. he was deployed to discharge his duties at gate No.4 of CISF Unit, PPT, Paradeep and he was obliged to cause checking of outgoing men, material and vehicles. It has to be noticed that the office of the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs) had issued an Order No.CISF/PPT/INT/53/95-33 dated 05.01.1996 stating that a Constable may carry Rs.10/- while on duty during a shift to meet pocket expenses towards refreshment etc. In no case any CISF personnel is allowed to keep more than the above amount during duty hours at various posts. On 14.01.2000 at 1:00 P.M. this writ petitioner, as was required, made an entry in the general diary disclosing that he was to discharge the duty at gate No.4 and was possessed of Rs.10/- currency note bearing No.56339. On the day at 7:05 hours a surprise check was conducted by his Inspector, in the presence of other officers, and during the check the writ petitioner was found in possession of Rs.24/-. The checking party verified his duty post and searched it and found Rs.362/-wrapped in a polythene packet hidden under a brick. The preliminary enquiry disclosed adequate material. Therefore, the department initiated regular departmental enquiry. With reference to Rs.24/- found in his physical possession charge No.1 and with reference to Rs.362/- found at his duty post charge No.2 were framed and articles of charge was served on him and he submitted his explanations. After considering the same and having not been satisfied with his explanations, enquiry was ordered to proceed and it proceeded accordingly.

5. On behalf of the Department, four witnesses were examined and several documents were exhibited. In defence, four witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited.

6. After considering the entire material on record, the enquiry officer found him guilty for charge No.1 (