The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary authority must follow the proper procedure for imposing minor penalties as per Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent in his order No.V-11014/01/2004/L&R(SZ)/1540 dated 27.02.2004 confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his order No.V-11014/6RB/Disc-Appeal/2003-10697 dated 12.11.2003 confirming the order passed by the first respondent in his order No.V-15015/6RB/Disc/MIN-JA-1/2003-8288 dated 08.09.2003, quash the same and to direct the respondents to refund the seven days pay fine to the petitioner and to make necessary entries in the service records.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the orders of the respondents dated 08.09.2003, 12.11.2003 and 27.02.2004, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the order of punishment viz., fine of seven days pay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the charge memorandum, has submitted that in view of the specific reply by the petitioner denying the same and also his request for enquiry by some other officer, it is but proper on the part of the first respondent to conduct enquiry and prove the charge levelled against him. According to him, in view of failure to follow such procedure, particularly, Rule 37(1)(a) and (b) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, the order passed by the Original Authority, Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority are liable to be quashed.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to put forth his defence and in view of minor punishment imposed, there is no obligation on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to hold the enquiry, and the procedure followed is in consonance with the provisions. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.

5. The petitioner by name Jamil Akhtar of CISF , 6th Reserve Battalion, Arakkonam, was issued following charge memorandum:

"Gross indiscipline, misuse of official capacity and unbecoming of a member of the Force in that on 13.03.2003 at bout 07.00 hours during fall in time, when Constable Nagendra Panwar reported that he is sick for one week, and line duty should be given to him. Ins/Exe Jamil Akhtar used "Bahan Chod Kya Bakbas Kar Raha Hai" which is un-parliamentary. "

6. It is not in dispute that on receipt of the above mentioned charge memorandum, the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 26.07.2003. In his reply, he has stated that the charge framed against him is baseless in order to make him a scapegoat, foul play has been committed by a group of indisciplined personnel. He also stated that the incident may be enquired through some other officer. Apart from the same, he has also highlighted several aspects disputing the charges levelled against him. The first respondent, Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, 6th Reserve Battalian, Arakkonam, in spite of the specific reply of the petitioner denying the charge and praying for enquiry, without resorting to such recourse and after finding that enough materials are available, has awarded the penalty of fine to an amount equivalent to seven days basic pay. It is not in dispute that the penalty imposed is a minor one. In this regard, it is useful to refer Rule 37, which speaks about procedure for imposing minor penalties.

"37. Procedure for imposing minor penalties:-

(1) No order imposing any of minor penalties specified in rule 34 shall be made except after -

(a) informing the enrolled member in writing of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he wishes to make against the proposal;

(b) holding an inquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires, in the manner laid down in sub-