IMPORTANT POINT
The punishment of reduction in pay scale under Rule 34(v) of the CISF Rules, 2001 can be for more than one stage, and the principle of parity in punishment applies only to identical charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :

1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6215 of 2012 by which the order of punishment as contained in Letter No.1928 dated 23.05.2011, the appellate order dated 30.07.2011 and revisional order dated 30.04.2012 have been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The writ petitioner while holding the post of Sub-Inspector/Exe., was put under suspension vide order dated 27.10.2010. The memo of charge was framed against the writ petitioner on 23.11.2010 by the respondent no.3.

The writ petitioner submitted his reply on 04.12.2010 denying all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed by order dated 08.12.2010 to enquire into the charges levelled against the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the suspension of the writ petitioner was revoked vide order dated 05.01.2011.

The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on 23.04.2011 establishing both the charges to be proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, vide impugned order dated 23.05.2011, imposed punishment upon the writ petitioner of reduction in his pay scale from 10890/- + 4200/- to 10020/- + 4200/- and passed the order to the effect that the same would be effective for three years and even after three years, the same may have cumulative effect of future increments of the writ petitioner.

Against the said order, the writ petitioner preferred appeal on 23.06.2011, wherein, the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2011. Against the appellate order, the writ petitioner preferred revision which was also rejected on 30.04.2012.

Being aggrieved with the all the orders, the writ petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6215 of 2012 which has been dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2021, against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ petitioner while posted as Sub-Inspector was put under suspension vide order dated 27.10.2010 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Memorandum of charge was served upon the appellant on 23.11.2010 levelling therein the following charges:

vkjksi dk vuqPNsn&1

^^cy la[;k 844120021 mi fu0@dk;Z] vkj0 ,u0 >k] dsvkSlqc bdkbZ ch,l,y cksdkjks] dks fnukad 20-10-2010 dks jk=h ikyh le; 1700 cts ls fnukad 21-10-2010 dks le; 0500 cts rd lh-bZ-tsM xsV ij ikyh izHkkjh ds :i esa rSukr fd;k x;k FkkA mDr rSukrh ds nkSjku mlus in ,oa 'kfDr dk nq:I;ksx djrs gq, vlekftd rRoksa ds lkFk lafyIr gksdj le; yxHkx 1840 ls 1900 cts ds chp Jh izeksn dqekj ¼flfoy O;fDr½] LdwVj ctkt la[;k BR-20-B 2060 rFkk Jh eqUuk fdLdq ¼flfoy O;fDr½] LdwVj la[;k BR-20-D 1551 dks fcuk oS/k dkxtkr ,oa vuqefr ds gh vukf/kd`r :i ls lh0bZ0tsM xsV }kjk la;a= ds vanj izos'k djk dj la;a= dh lEifr dks pksjh djk;kA bl izdkj mi fu0@dk;Z] vkj0 ,u0 >k }kjk fd;k x;k d`R; mlds inh; dRrZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] nqjkpkj] vuq'kklughurk ,oa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk fn;s x;s vkns'kksa@funsZ'kksa ds vogsyuk ds d`R; dks iznf'kZr djrk gSA vr% vkjksi gS**A

vkjksi dk vuqPNsn&2

^^cy la[;k 844120021 mi fu0@dk;Z] vkj0 ,u0 >k] dsvkSlqc bdkbZ ch,l,y] cksdkjks] dks mlds lsok nLrkost ds vuqlkj fofHkUu vuq'kklughu d`R;ksa ds fy, dqy 12 NksVh ltkvksa ls nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gS ftlesa 01 cM+h ltk rFkk 11 NksVh ltkvksa ls nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl izdkj mi fu0@dk;Z vkj0 ,u0 >k] vuq'kklughu d`R; djus dk vknh gSA vr% vkjksi gSA**

The writ petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges but the reply having not been found to be satisfactory, the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the appellant. The charges have been found to be proved. The same has been accepted b