JUDGMENT :

The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent is preferred against the order/judgment dated 01.03.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3563 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition has refused to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the respondents-authorities by which the pay of the writ petitioner was reduced by one stage from Rs. 4500 to Rs. 4400/-in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 for a period of one year with further direction that the writ petitioner will not earn increment during the period of reduction and it will have effect on his future increment.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under:

When the writ petitioner was posted as Head Constable in CISF Unit at Bokaro Steel City on 06.06.2004 and was on patrolling duty at about 7.00 a.m., the parties of Crime Branch found that about 15 to 20 persons were stealing Iron Scraps.

On the basis of said incident, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which he was found guilty and accordingly, punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 4500 to Rs. 4400/-in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 for a period of one year with further direction that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and it will have effect on his future increment, was imposed upon the writ petitioner by the disciplinary authority, which was affirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority.

Being aggrieved with the order of punishment, the writ petitioner approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3563 of 2009 wherein ground has been taken that the relevant documents were not provided to him and was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses even though the punishment being a major. Further, no person was seen at the place of occurrence from where the iron scraps were alleged to be removed but the inquiry officer has found the charges proved against him without appreciating the material lacuna and even the same has not been considered by the appellant or revisional authority.

While, on the other hand, argument advanced on behalf of respondents-CISF before the learned Single Judge was that there is no violation of principles of natural justice rather the writ petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but it is writ petitioner who had shown no desire to cross-examine the witnesses. However, in order to defend his case, he had examined the defense witness. The enquiry officer, considering the materials available on record, found the charges proved against the petitioner, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority, who imposed the impugned punishment, which was affirmed by the appellate as well as by the revisional authority, as such there are concurrent finding recorded by the three administrative authorities and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter has refused to interfere with the order of punishment, which cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.

The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties, dismissed the writ petition showing no interference with the order of punishment, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.

4. Admitted fact in this case is that the writ petitioner, who was appointed as a member of disciplined force i.e. C.I.S.F., while posted as Head Constable in CISF Unit at Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro was assigned with patrolling duty in 1st Shift i.e. from 0500 hours to 1300 hours on 06.0