NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3829 of 2016 Order reserved on : 19.12.2023 Order delivered on : 05.03.2024  Ankur Pratap Singh S/o Dhanpal Singh, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gonsa, P.S. Sorana, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh ---- Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India Through the Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, New Delhi

2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Block No.13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. Senior Commandant (Administration), Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh

5. Assistant Commandant (Administration), Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondents Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Order

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

“10.1 To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned orders dated (Annexure P/1 P / 2 & P/3)

10.2 To issue a command directing the respondents to call for the records pertaining to the present petition.

10.3 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector, CISF, Bhilai Steel Plant at the relevant point of time in the respondent Department. On 14.09.2015, the respondent No.5 issued a charge sheet against the petitioner proposing to conduct an enquiry under Rule 37 of Central Industrial Security Force, Rules 2001 alleging that when the petitioner was posted at Boriya Gate, he allegedly allowed the unauthorized passing of Truck No.CG07AU-2670 through a different gate (H.S.C.L. Gate). After receiving the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply on 21.09.2015 stating therein that the allegation of negligence as leveled upon the petitioner is baseless and is without any substance. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority ie. the respondent No.5 vide impugned order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P/1) imposed penalty of downgrading one increment without cumulative effect against the petitioner, against which the petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Rule 46 of CISF rules, 2001 before the Respondent No. 4. The appellate authority (Respondent No. 4) vide order dated 13.01.2016 (Annexure P/2) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against which the petitioner preferred a revision under Rule 54 of CISF, rules 2001 before the respondent No.3, which has also been dismissed, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the purpose of holding the petitioner guilty of the alleged charge, no documents or the statements of the witnesses were provided to the petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet, therefore it is case of no evidence and the impugned orders have been passed in colorable exercise of power. While imposing the minor penalty of downgrading of pay without cumulative effect, the respondents have not adhered to the procedure prescribed under rule 37 (1) and 37 (2) of CISF Rule, 2001 as downgrading of pay will adversely effect the pension of the petitioner. No enquiry was done by the respondents after filing of reply by the petitioner, as such no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner therefore the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of O. K. Bhardwaj vs Union of India and others, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 and the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras in the matter of N. Subramanian vs The Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force and another passed in WP No.34587/2005, decided on 01.04.2009.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes th