Disciplinary punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct; excessive penalties are subject to modification by the court.

ORDER :

(C. SARAVANAN, J.)

The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders passed by the respondents, as detailed below :

2. By the Impugned Order dated 29.02.2012, passed by the 5^th respondent, the petitioner has been awarded a punishment of “Reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.9880/- to Rs.9510/- in the Pay Band-1 of Rs.5200- 20200 with grade pay of Rs.2800/- for a period of one year with immediate effect upon No.864502834 HC/GD C.Devarajan. It is further ordered that HC/GD C.Devarajan will not earn 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”.

3. By the Impugned Order dated 30.05.2012, the 4^th respondent, as the appellate authority has affirmed the punishment order dated 29.02.2012 of the 5^th respondent, and thereby rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. By the Impugned Order dated 21.12.2012, the 3^rd respondent has rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the 4^th respondent and affirmed the order of the 4^th and 5^th respondents.

4. In the background of these Impugned Orders is the Charge Memo dated 15.11.2011 issued against the petitioner by the 5^th Respondent in respect of an incident that took place on 04.11.2011. The charge framed against the petitioner in the aforesaid Charge Memo reads as follows:

“ANNEXURE – I

STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST CISF NO.864502834 HC/GD C.DEVARAJAN (UNDER SUSPENSION) OF CISF UNIT VPT VISAKHAPATNAM.

“That CISF No.864502834 HC/GD C.Devarajan (U/S) of 'B' Sector of CISF Unit, VPT Visakhapatanam was detailed from 0500 hrs to 1300 hrs on 04.11.2011 at EQ-7 Gate along with ASI/Exe Skariah T.M, Constable K.R.Selvarajan and Constable K.Bhaskar. At about 1330 hours on 04.11.2011 after completion of duty he was found standing in front of 'B' Sector Barrack in suspicious condition and ran away from the spot to avoid the pocket checking when Insp/Exe Anil Kumar alongwith SI/Exe M.E.Nanjunda and HC/GD S.P.Swamy called him for pocket checking. Thus, the act committed by No.864502834 HC/GD C.Devarajan (U/S) amounts to gross misconduct, grave indiscipline of duty being a member of the Disciplined Force”. Hence the charge.

5. The petitioner replied to the said Charge Memo, dated 15.11.2011 by a reply dated 25.11.2011, wherein the petitioner has denied the above mentioned charge framed against him by the 5^th Respondent.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had visited 'B' Sector Barrack to receive the Mess Caution Money and since the Mess Officer was on 'B' Shift duty, the petitioner immediately returned back to the board on the shift bus. At that time, Insp/Exe. Mr.Anilkumar, along with SI/Exe.M.E.Nanjunda and HC/GD S.P.Swamy were checking the person, Constable K.Bhaskar and that the petitioner was asked to sign on the seizure list for having seized Rs.140/- from the said Constable. It is stated that the petitioner had put signature, though the petitioner was not an eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner left for his residence and had no reason to avoid the pocket checking of Insp/Exe Anil Kumar.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was checked in person, and nothing was recovered from him and that the allegations against the petitioner is a fabrication, and that the seizure list itself a glaring proof to sustain that no money was seized from the possession of the petitioner.

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that, if the petitioner had any intention of avoiding personal checking, the petitioner would not have made himself available for the checking at all. It is stated that however, the enquiry off