IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the responsibility of the petitioner to handle arms with care and caution, and the justness of the imposed punishments in light of the petitioner's previous misconducts.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in No.V- 15017/R-3/L & R/DAE/2010 2979 dated 31.05.2010 on the file of the 3 rd respondent and quash the same and for directing the respondents to pay the increment in accordance with the rules and procedures. :In W.P.No.26415 of 2011 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in No.V- 11014/87/L&R/2010-1972 dated 28.12.2010 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages.)

1. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.26165 of 2011 is filed calling for the records in No.V-15017/R-3/L&R/DAE/2010 2979 dated 31.05.2010 on the file of the 3 rd respondent and quash the same and for directing the respondents to pay the increment in accordance with the rules and procedures.

The Writ Petition in W.P.No.26415 of 2011 is filed calling for the records in No.V-11014/87/L&R/2010-1972 dated 28.12.2010 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages.

2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.26165 of 2011, in brief, is as follows,

2.1. Petitioner joined Central Industrial Security Force on 11.11.1988. He was promoted as Inspector in March 2004. On 25.03.2009, he was detailed for election duty at Hyderabad. He was performing as Coy Commander of Coy No.552. He was issued a pistol butt No.12, bearing Register No.15330848 for the election duty. Another Coy Commander accompanied him in Coy No.551 was issued pistol butt No.03 bearing Register No.1640146.

2.2. During the course of election duty, petitioner established a Unit kote for safe custody of all the arms and ammunitions. During the election duty, Assistant Commandant S.S.Sandhu fell ill and another Assistant Commandant was deputed in his place. Assistant Commandant S.S.Sandhu during the enroute at Warangal Railway Station in an urgency and illness had mistakenly received the pistol butt No.12 instead of his own pistol butt No.03 from the Unit Kote and submitted pistol butt No.12 to the relieving authority. Petitioner was neither aware that Unit Kote had mistakenly given his pistol, nor he was informed by the relieved authority, about his pistol given by S.S.Sandhu to the relieving authority.

2.3. Upon coming to know the mistake in change of pistol, it was brought to the knowledge of the higher authority. Assistant Commandant S.S.Sandhu informed over telephone and admitted about the mistake. In the said circumstances, petitioner had to use the pistol butt No.3 instead of his own pistol butt No.12. During the entire election duty, petitioner had received only pistol butt No.3 and it is known to the Disciplinary Authority and Higher Authority. After the election duty was over, all the weapons were returned to the Unit Kote Armourer. Unit Armourer stated that pistol butt No.12 was changed and pistol butt No.3 was handed over and to coverup his mistake, petitioner tried to make up by overwriting the register. Petitioner had no role in overwriting the register. Because of the change of pistol, he had given the pistol No.3. Though this is known to the Authorities, a memorandum dated 06.07.2009 and Rule 37 of CISF Rules was given for gross negligence, carelessness and indiscipline. Despite his reply, his reply was rejected by 1st respondent by passing an order in N.V-15014/DAE(K))Min.11/Disc/2009/1292 dated 28.07.2009 by imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

2.4. Petitioner filed Appeal and that Appeal was dismissed by Appellate Authority in order No.V-15014/Disc/Min.11/Appeal/DAE(K)/2009/1600, dated 12.09.2009. The Revision filed by him before the 3rd respondent was aloo not considered favourably. The Appeal and Revision had been rejected even without examining the