Disciplinary proceedings require adherence to natural justice but allow limited judicial intervention unless gross violations occur; negligence established justifies penalties imposed.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector/Executive in the respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in 2014. For the period from 2014 to 2018, the petitioner was posted in the CISF Unit of ONGC at Hazira, Gujarat. On 23rd May, 2018, the petitioner was issued a charge memo under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 with the following charge:

"ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I

2. The departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner, in its report dated 7th August, 2018 concluded that the charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved. On 12th September, 2018, the petitioner was awarded penalty of `reduction of pay by one stage in time scale of pay matrix level-6 for a period of one year'. It was further directed that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the affect of postponing of his future increments of pay. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17th October, 2019. Further, the Revisionary Authority rejected the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 19th September, 2019.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 19th September, 2019 passed by the Revisionary Authority, rejecting the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has contended that (i) the incident leading up to the issuance of charge memo against the petitioner occurred not because of any act or omission on part of the petitioner, but because the Senior Officer of CISF posted at the ONGC Unit did not pass any orders to prevent the unlawful assembly; (ii) it was the responsibility of the Senior Officer, being a Gazetted officer of CISF, to prevent the unlawful assembly and the post of the petitioner was not vested with powers to disperse such unlawful assembly; (iii) the authorities below have failed to appreciate the statements given by the various witnesses including the cross-examination conducted by the petitioner and therefore, have wrongly held the petitioner guilty of the charge; and, (iv) the cross-examination of Shri Rajiv Tiwari, DGM (Production), ONGC, who was PW-6 in the inquiry conducted, clearly shows that it was the petitioner who reached the spot to rescue PW-6 from the crowd.

5. Per contra, Mr. Rishabh Sahu, counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the authorities below have passed well-reasoned and detailed orders holding the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. He has further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the CCTV footage has rightly concluded that it was not the petitioner, but some other CISF personnel de