IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.

ORDER :

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in letter no. 3376 dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Commandant-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit, CCL Kargali, Bokaro (the respondent no. 4) whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of ‘removal from service’. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in letter no. 6399 dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure- 5 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority i.e., Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the respondent no. 4 has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter no. 16713 dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the revisional authority i.e., Inspector General, CISF (Ministry of Home Affairs), Eastern Zone Headquarter, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) whereby the revision petition dated 25.09.2019 preferred by the petitioner against the appellate order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 has been rejected. Prayer has also been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable/GD (General Duty) under the respondent no. 2 on 22.07.2009 and was allotted CISF No. 097352994. He committed trivial mistakes while discharging his duty on different dates during the period from 5.8.2017 to 27.8.2018 for which he was saddled with six minor punishments like stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect on two occasions and withholding of salary on four occasions i.e., for 1 day, 7 days, 5 days and 7 days.

3. It is further submitted that when the petitioner was posted at CISF Unit, CCL Kargali, District-Bokaro, he was put under suspension with immediate effect in contemplation of a departmental proceeding vide order as contained in letter no. 10 dated 09.01.2019 issued by the Deputy Commandant, Dhori Area of CISF Unit, CCL Kargali. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4, vide letter no. 587 dated 23.1.2019, framed following charges against the petitioner: -

(i) The petitioner was assigned night shift duty from 9.00 p.m. of 9.1.2019 to 6.00 a.m. of 10.01.2019 but he reported after ten minutes of the scheduled time i.e. at 9.10 p.m. at ‘B’ Coy. Control Room of CCL Kargali in intoxicated condition. When he was asked by Shift Incharge, Head Constable/GD- Sri K. P. Chakraborty to sign in the duty register for deployment at Amlo check post, he became furious and misbehaved with Shift Incharge by abusing and slapping him. When HC/GD, Company Havaldar Major (CHM)- Uday Kumar Singh tried to calm the petitioner, he also misbehaved with him by slapping and using unparliamentary language.

(ii) Further, when the petitioner was taken to Dhori Regional Hospital for his medical examination at 9.40 p.m. on 09.1.2019, he also misbehaved with QRT Incharge, Sub-Inspector Sri Awatar Singh by abusing and scuffling with him.

(iii) Previously, the petitioner was already penalized on six occasions with minor punishments for misconducts, indiscipline, dereliction of duty and disobedience of the directions given by senior officials.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was medically examined on 9.1.2019 at 10.25 P.M. by the Medical Officer, Dhori Regional Hospital and the medical report did not support the allegation of intoxication as levelled in the memo of charge since the doctor had diagnosed the case as "pain in abdomen" with "aberrant behaviour". The petitioner filed written statement of defence on 27.1.2019 tendering apology with a request to consider his case sympathetically but the same was not considered in its true