Disciplinary authorities must establish charges of misconduct with sufficient evidence; modifications to penalties must balance discipline with compassion.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. The petitioner is a Head-Constable (GD) with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and is aggrieved by the order dated 14th May, 2020 passed by the office of the Inspector General, CISF DAE & DOS Sector, HQrs., New Delhi rejecting the Revision Petition filed by him challenging the order dated 31st October, 2019 of DIG, DOS Zone-I HQrs., Bengaluru only partly allowing the appeal against the penalty awarded to him by the Disciplinary Authority, Commandant, CISF Unit VSSC Thumba vide his order dated 19th August, 2019.

2. The brief facts as are relevant for the purposes of the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner was served with a Charge Memorandum No.V-15014/CISF/VSSC/Disc/Maj-01/PU/2019/2296 dated 16th May, 2019 under Rule-36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 on the following Articles of Charge:

ARTICLE -I

"An act of gross misconduct and indiscipline on the part of No. 892299951 HC/GD) P Unnithan in that when he was detailed for "C" shift duty at SOG on 03.05.2019 found absent after briefing and ran away to VSSC Health Centre, from there he left to railway track and pelted stones towards public which tarnished the image of CISF.

ARTICLE -II

An act of gross misconduct, and indiscipline on the part of No.892299951 HC/GD P Unnithan in that on 03.05.2019 at about 2320, when he was brought back from railway track, he shouted in filthy language, created nuisance in barrack as well as in front of control room which is an act of unbecoming of a member of the Force".

3. Since the petitioner denied all the charges against him, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and report submitted on 8th July, 2019, on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Commandant, CISF UNIT VSSC Thumba awarded a penalty of `compulsory retirement from service with full eligible pensionary benefits' vide his final order dated 19th August, 2019. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal dated 5th September, 2019 to the DIG, CISF, DOS-I, HQrs. Bangalore. The Appellate Authority modified the penalty to "reduction of pay to the minimum stage (Level-05 in 7th CPC) for a period of 05 years with cumulative effect". Against this order dated 31st October, 2019, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was rejected on 14th May, 2020.

4. Sh. Abhishek Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Articles of Charge have not been proved inasmuch as under Article-I, the respondents were required to establish that the petitioner had absented himself from the shift duty, had run away to the VSSC Health Centre and thereafter, had gone to the railway track and had pelted stones on the public. With regard to Article-II, it was essential that the respondents proved that the petitioner had abused in filthy language and created nuisance in the barracks. It is his contention that there has been no witness from the public examined to establish the first charge. It was his case that the respondents had not produced the Medical Reference which falsified their claim that he had run to the VSSC Health Centre or had gone to the railway track. It was also urged that the witnesses would not have known the import of the words which had been spoken by the petitioner, as it was also alleged that the petitioner had abused in Malyalam.

5. This court cannot be dragged into the re-evaluation of the evidence that was produced before the inquiry officer, while exercising its writ jurisdiction. In any case, the petitioner himself has admitted in his revision petition in para 2 at page No.157 of the e-paperbook that he did not know of what had happened after he had gotten down from the ambulance. If that be so, he is certainly not placed in a pos