The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, the need for evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of guilt, and the requirement for the penalty to be proportionate to the misconduct proved.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at the state of admission.

3. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon him vide order dated 26.11.2013, after being found guilty in the disciplinary proceeding. He also challenges the order passed by the appellate authority dated 28.02.2014 and by the revisional authority dated 05.08.2014, by which his appeal and revision have been rejected.

4. Facts of the case are briefly stated as under :

The petitioner joined services in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), in the year 1993. While working as Head Constable, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. By Memorandum dated 03.05.2013, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging three charges. In the first charge, it was alleged that while being posted in Training Centre in ‘C’ shift duty on the Main Gate with a weapon, he was found sleeping during the course of checking by the Night Checking Officer at 04.10 hrs. and upon being questioned, he misbehaved with the officer. In the Second charge, it was alleged that upon being questioned by his superior officer on 01-03-2013 about the quantity of ration issued in the Mess on 28.02.2013, he was unable to disclose the correct quantity of ration. Thereby, he not only disobeyed the order of the superior officer, but also misbehaved with him. In the third charge it is alleged that while being posted as Mess Commander on 13.03.2013, he misbehaved with his superior officer upon being questioned about excess quantity of Tomatoes.

5. Disciplinary inquiry was conducted in pursuance of the Memorandum of charge-sheet dated 03.05.2013 and the petitioner participated in the same. The inquiry officer submitted his report holding all three charges to be proved. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner for making representation against the inquiry officer’s report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 26.11.2013 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement from service with full pension and pensionary benefits on him.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal dated 18.12.2013 before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, who was pleased to reject his appeal vide order dated 28.02.2014. He preferred revision petition dated 03.04.2014 before the Inspector General, CISF, Hyderabad, which was rejected by order dated 05.08.2014. Thus, the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the disciplinary authority came to be confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authorities. The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 26.11.2013, 28.02.2014 and 05.08.2014 in the present petition.

7. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Y. P. Deshmukh submitted that the article of charge No. I, ought not to have been levelled against the petitioner, as he was already subjected to penalty of warning by conducting a proceedings in the Orderly Room under Rule 38 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (Rules of 2001) . He further submits that the action taken against the petitioner is discriminatory as two other members of the Force were also found sleeping in the night checking on the relevant date and that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. He further submits that except the depositions of the concerned officers, there was no supporting evidence in respect of any of the three charges. He further submitted that the charge of sleeping on duty was in fact not levelled against the petitioner and it is only on account of allegation of misbehaviour that the charge No. I came to be added in the charge-sheet. He taken us through the depositions of various witnesses to make out a case that the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are not supported by the evidence on record. He also submitted