Disciplinary penalties must adhere to procedural safeguards and proportionality; excessive penalties undermine justice and violate rights.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned orders as at Annexures-3, 5, 8 and 10 and to grant him the service benefits for the period between 30^th July, 2014 and 26^th April, 2018 with interest and regularizing it and at the same time, to direct the penalty imposed to have no any adverse effect on his future pensionary benefits on the grounds stated.

2. As per the pleading on record, the petitioner is to have been imposed with multiple punishments without conducting a fresh enquiry. It is claimed that the period between the date of compulsory retirement from service up to the day before the date of reinstatement has been treated as dies non and the same stood confirmed by the Appellate Authority though modifying the penalty imposed to the one of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years with immediate effect. The contention of the petitioner is that such decision of the Appellate Authority has been confirmed vide Annexure-10 and all such decisions of the authorities below are in violation of the principles of natural justice and result of non-application of judicial mind and hence, arbitrary, illegal and thus, liable to be quashed.

3. While in service, alleging disobedience, with the disciplinary action initiated, the petitioner was imposed with a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the following article of charges: (i) for gross indiscipline and disobedience of lawful order by not complying the direction of the Senior Commandant, CISF to appear for counselling on the date fixed; and (ii) finding no improvement in his conduct in spite of being awarded one major and eight minor penalties earlier. A copy of the chargesheet is at Annexure-1 and referring to same, it is stated that with the disciplinary proceeding initiated, such penalty was imposed, whereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and ultimately, approached the Revisional Authority, who confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement, consequent upon which, W.P.(C) No.17133 of 2015 filed by him was disposed of on 16^th March, 2018 setting aside the punishment as disproportionate with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order. The claim of the petitioner is that without further enquiry held in terms of the above direction, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated but was imposed with a penalty of reduction of pay by four stages in Level-3 for a period of four years by the impugned order dated 24^th April, 2018 as at Annexure-3, against which, a representation dated 25^th May, 2018 i.e. Annexure-4 was submitted for a decision by the DG, CISF but in the meantime, he was served with another order dated 20^th June, 2018 i.e. Annexure-5, wherein, consequent upon, the order i.e.Annexure-3, the intervening period between 30^th July, 2014 and 26^th April, 2018 was treated as dies non for all purposes. It is pleaded that against such an order as per Annexure-5, the petitioner preferred an appeal and it was followed by the order dated 2^nd April, 2019 (Annexure-8). It is further pleaded that against the said order, a revision was filed and it was dismissed vide Annexure-10. Reiterating the facts earlier pleaded in W.P.(C) No.17133 of 2015, the contention of the petitioner is that imposition of a major penalty is illegal especially considering the charge (i) and also the decision to decline him the service benefits during th