The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing punishment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/Rev/PRK/2014-10537 dated 27.09.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Order No.V-11014/25/2006/L&R(SZ) 6319 dated 09.11.2006 modifying the order passed by the 4th respondent in his final order No.V-15014/GHC/AD.VI/PRK/CPCL/2005/121 dated 12.01.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondent to grant all consequential benefits.)

1. The modified punishment of “Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect” imposed on the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Constable. He was on deputation with Delhi Police and thereafter, transferred to CISF Unit, CPCL Manali in proceedings dated 09.11.2002. He was relieved on 12.07.2004 and did not report to CISF Unit CPCL Manali on being relieved by the Delhi Police. The respondents sent call up letter to his home address in letters dated 13.01.2005 and on 22.01.2005 and further on 05.02.2005 with a direction to report back to unit. However, the petitioner on his own reported at CISF Hqrs New Delhi on 03.06.2005 and he was relieved on 06.06.2005 with directions to report to CISF Unit CPCL Manali.

3. Regarding the overstayal of the writ petitioner, a charge memorandum in proceedings dated 27.09.2005 under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules was issued by the Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, CPCL Manali and the following charges are framed:

ARTICLE OF CHARGE – I

That No.884657266 Constable P.R.Kumawat of CISF Unit CPCL Manali Chennai overstayed in joining time for 325 days from 12.07.2004 to 02.06.2005 unauthorisedly without any permission/intimation from the competent authority. Hence the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE – II

That No.884657266 Constable P.R.Kumawat of CISF Unit CPCL Manali Chennai was sent 3 call-up notices to his leave/home address directing him to report for duty immediately, but he failed to report for duty by disobeying the lawful orders. Hence the charge.

4. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and the Enquiry Officer finally submitted a report, holding that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The Enquiry Report was communicated to the writ petitioner, enabling him to submit further objections on the findings. On receipt of the further representation against the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction in pay to the minimum stage of Rs.3050/- in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with immediate effect. It is further directed that the petitioner will not earn any increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

5. Challenging the said punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner submitted an appeal on 17.02.2006 to the Appellate Authority i.e., Deputy Inspector General CISF South Zone Hqrs, Chennai. The Appellate Authority considered the grounds raised by the writ petitioner and found that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly awarded the penalty to the petitioner for his willful absence from duty, which was proved in the enquiry. However, considering the fact that the petitioner had put in more than 17 years of service, the Appellate Authority modified the penalty awarded to the writ petitioner as 'Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect' in proceedings dated 09.11.2006. Again, the petitioner preferred a revision petition on 07.07.2008 and the revisional aut