ORDER :

Petitioner, who is working as Assistant Sub-Inspector (for short ‘the ASI’) in Central Industrial Security Force (for short ‘the CISF’) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned orders, i.e., the final order dated 04.07.2017, Appellate Order dated 17.08.2017 and Revisional Order dated 10.10.2017, whereby he was imposed with penalty of fine equivalent to three days pay.

2. Heard Sri H.S.Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S. Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Sri H.S. Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner at the relevant 3rd point of time was working as ASI with the respondent and petitioner was posted to work at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, for aviation security duty. He submits that charge memo was issued on 14/16.06.2017 alleging that the petitioner, who was deployed to perform morning flexi duty in ‘B’ Coy from 3.00 hours to 11.00 hours on 29.05.2017 and was directed at 4.00 hours by the SHA I/c to perform duties at X.BIS No.17(ATRS) and he performed frisking duty from 4.00 hours to 4.30 hours. At about 6.00 hours he refused to relieve the SI/Exe P.D. Bunkar, who was deployed at frisking booth and also refused to open another frisking booth even after order by the SHA I/c which amounted to gross disobedience of lawful orders. The Article of charge dated 14/16.06.2017 framed against the petitioner and the reply of the petitioner dated 26.06.2017, are placed on record as Annexures-R2 and R5 to the statement of objection filed by the respondents. In his reply the petitioner denied the allegations made against him. Thereafter considering the reply of the petitioner final order of punishment was passed on 04.07.2017 imposing punishment of fine amount equivalent to his three days pay, which is a minor penalty. Against the order of penalty, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Senior Commandant/CASO Bangalore Airport, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs). The Appellate Authority by order dated 17.08.2017 confirmed the final order of penalty dated 04.07.2017. Thereafter, petitioner preferred revision before the DIG, APSZ, Chennai, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs). The Revisional Authority by order dated 10.10.2017 dismissed the revision confirming the final order of penalty, as well as the order of Appellate Authority. Hence the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned orders i.e., the final order, orders of the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondents have not examined any witnesses, but only considering the reply of the petitioner, punishment has been imposed. Further he submits that punishment was imposed by one Sri U.P. Singh, Deputy Commandant, ‘C’ Coy but whereas the charge memo was issued by Assistant Commandant ‘C’ Coy. It is submitted that the petitioner had made allegation against Sri U.P. Singh, Deputy Commandant, that the said ‘U.P. Singh had threatened petitioner with dire consequences’. Therefore, he submits that he could not have passed the final order of punishment against the petitioner and further learned counsel submits that the said person was the complainant and he could not have taken the role of Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty of punishment. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that entire proceedings is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Sri Beemaiah, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 appeared through video conference and submitted that the Assistant Commandant of Control Room as per Annexure-R1 brought to the notice of the Deputy Commandant, the misconduct of the petitioner, who initiated proceedings under Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules 2001 (for short ‘the 2001 Rules’) for imposition of minor penalty. For imposition of minor penal