The punishment imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Pratibha Rani, J.

1. Working as a Constable with CISF since the year 2000 and posted in the year 2004 at the Kandla Port Trust Complex, New Kandla, District Kutch (Gujarat) a charge memo was served upon the petitioner on March 29, 2005 alleging as under:-

“Force No.002240158 Const. (Under suspension) Shankar Kumar, CISF, Unit KPT Kandla, during posting on his duty in the Crime Control & Information Department of the Unit on 06.12.2004 at around 2145 hours one Tata Sumo was allowed to go out of the gate without any security check by the Const. (under suspension) D.P. Bhai, posted on his duty of Out Checking of Security Check at North Gate. The above incident was dealt with very lightly by the above Constable (under suspension) Shankar Kumar. The above under suspension constable understood that his duty is over by giving information of this incident to the North Gate Shift Incharge. Had the above suspended constable been seen that correct guidelines have not been received by the North Gate Shift Incharge, then it was incumbent upon him to immediately inform any other higher officer, so that appropriate steps could be taken well in time, but he did not do so and he gave information of this incident to the Inspector/Exe. D.Ekka only at 0245 hours. The above act of the force member shows his grave dereliction of duty. Hence, it is charged.”

2. The petitioner denied the charge resulting in an inquiry officer being appointed who after recording evidence submitted a report on September 13, 2005 holding that the charge was established and after furnishing the inquiry report to the petitioner for his response, considering the same, vide order dated November 30, 2005 the Disciplinary Authority levied the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that during said year the petitioner would not earn any increment and on the expiry of the period of reduction the same shall have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

3. The petitioner did not avail the right of appeal available to him against the aforenoted order. However, exercising power under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, the Reviewing Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on February 23, 2006, highlighting that one facet of the gravamen of the charge of not immediately reporting the matter to the shift in-charge being proved required the penalty to be enhanced to one of dismissal from service. The petitioner gave his response to the said show cause notice, and considering the same, the Reviewing Authority vide order dated April 20, 2006 confirmed the proposed penalty dismissing the petitioner from service against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on September 30, 2006 against which revision filed before the Revisional Authority was rejected on October 31, 2013.

4. The petitioner preferred a writ petition registered as W.P.(C) No.6801/2006 in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in which show cause notice was issued. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on February 29, 2012 because the said High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Instant writ petition was thereafter filed in this Court. It may be highlighted that the writ petitioner challenged the order dated April 20, 2006 and September 30, 2006 by filing W.P.(C) No.1781/2013 which was disposed of by this Court directing that the petitioner should file a revision petition before the Revisional Authority, which the petitioner did resulting in the order dated October 31, 2013 being passed.

5. In an inchoately worded prayer (i), the petitioner has prayed that order dated October 31, 2013 passed by Director General, CISF and order dated November 30, 2005 issued by the Commandant, CISF which has levied the punishment of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay be quashed, during arguments in the appeal learned counsel for the petitioner restricted submissions