JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

Preface

1. In questioning the tenability and/or legality of the final order dated 29.01.2021, issued by the Commandant, CISF Unit DTPS, Durgapur, which imposed a penalty of reduction in the petitioner's pay by one stage in the time scale of pay (from Rs. 35,300/- to Rs. 34,300/- in Level-4, with a pay range of Rs. 25,500/- to Rs. 81,100/-) for a period of two years, during which the petitioner would not be entitled to earn increments and future increments would be postponed, and in questioning the authority of the respondents to seize the petitioner's pen camera, manipulate it, and access the petitioner's personal photos and videos, and also seeking a directive to the respondents to properly consider the petitioner's representation, the present writ petition has been filed.

Facts

2. Before delving into the contour of controversy centered around the writ petition, it would to be apt to narrate the key facts, as projected in the writ petition, which are as follows:

a) The petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as a Constable/GD. On 1^st May, 2018, he was posted to CISF Unit, DTPS, Durgapur, and was allotted accommodation at HD28C, DTPS Colony, Mayabazar, Durgapur, in July 2018. S.I. Abhishek Kumar was assigned a quarter exactly opposite to the petitioner's quarter. However, despite being senior in rank, Mr. Kumar and his family would repeatedly abuse and demean the petitioner's wife and elder son.

b) On 4^th March, 2020, the petitioner's wife and child were physically assaulted and abused with derogatory language by Mr. Kumar's wife and sister-in-law, requiring medical attention. A complaint was subsequently submitted to the Commandant on 6^th March, 2020.

c) However, instead of taking appropriate action against the perpetrator of the incident, an order vide. No. 1426 dated 7^th March, 2020 was issued to the petitioner to shift his accommodation to another quarter vide. No. A 09/97. The petitioner felt deprived of justice, which prompted him to submit another representation, which was subsequently allowed by an order dated 20^th June, 2020.

d) The petitioner did not vacate the quarter initially allotted to him, despite receiving repeated reminders. A charge sheet dated 29th August, 2020 was subsequently served upon him. A final order was passed, imposing a penalty of a fine equivalent to seven days' pay. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal, and by an order dated 18^th January, 2021, the penalty was modified to a censure. The petitioner then filed a revision against the order dated 18^th January, 2021, and by an order dated 25^th June, 2021, the censure was set aside, and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him.

e) On 15^th July, 2020, the petitioner was called over the phone by Respondent No. 6 to meet him at 11:30 p.m. However, the petitioner arrived at the plant company office at 12:40 a.m. but could not find Respondent No. 6 there at that time. While having a casual conversation with Respondent No. 7, the petitioner was noticed by Respondent No. 7 to have a pen in his shirt pocket. Respondent No. 7 casually asked the petitioner to hand over the pen. The petitioner then realized that his wife had mistakenly put a 'camera-pen drive-cum- pen' in his pocket instead of a regular pen.Nevertheless, the petitioner handed it over to Respondent No. 7.

f) Although the petitioner prayed for an apology, Respondent No. 7 took the pen to Respondent No. 6, and it has remained in their custody to date. Subsequently, a video was recorded by Respondent No. 9 in the presence of Respondents No. 6 and 7, and the petitioner was placed under suspension pending a disciplinary proceeding. On 19^th August, 2020, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 2nd September, 2020.

g) S.I./Exe. D.P. Rana, CISF Unit DTPS A was appointed as presenting officer and Insp/Fine A. Rahaman was appointed as Enquiry Officer (in short, EO). The w