ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the order of punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year which will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Constable on

25.05.1990 in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at Thanjavur and he had served in places all over India up to the year 2010. While he was serving at CISF Unit, VSP Visakhapatnam of Andhra Pradesh under the 9th respondent, a charge memo under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 was issued with the following charge:

"An act of gross negligence, dereliction of duty and professional incompetence, on the part of No.

902292723 Constable P.Selvaraj of CIW, CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam, in that while he was detailed for "B" shifty duty from 1400 hrs to 2200 hrs on 23.09.2010 at New party recovered some Indian currency (i.e. Rs.950/-) from outside New P.P.Gate Room No.7, being a CIW personnel he completely failed to detect the above mentioned delinquency and timely report to seniors for appropriate action."

After conducting the enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of "withholding of one increment for a period of two years which will not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay". The petitioner filed an appeal against the final order of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 11.11.2010 and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 16.01.2011. The petitioner filed further Revision Petition before the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent, considering that the petitioner was not given copy of the documents, remanded the matter by order dated 23.06.2011 to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration, directing the Disciplinary Authority to furnish the petitioner a copy of the documents and further directed the petitioner to file fresh reply on remand. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 20.09.2011 on consideration of the entire materials on record, found that the charge against the petitioner was proved, but, in any event, modified the punishment to Withholding of one increment for a period of one year which would not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. The petitioner, not satisfied with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, who by order dated 31.10.2012 confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner thereafter filed a Revision Petition before the 6th respondent, who by order dated 22.03.2012 confirmed the order of the Authorities below. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the 6, 7 and 8th respondents, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

3. The short point that is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged amount of Rs.950/- was collected from outside gate No.7 and therefore the petitioner who was to guard the gate was not responsible for the amount collected outside the gate. He further contended that petitioner was not given the duty of securing the place outside the gate.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of surveillance of the gate and not merely security duty of the gate and as such, it was the duty of the petitioner to report to the higher officials, the amount which was found near the gate. According to the respondents, when the HC/GD N.K. Tiwari along with CIW PTL party inspected gate No.7 on 23.09.2010 at 1950 hrs, they found an amount of Rs.950/- in various denominations outside the New P.P. Gate room No.7 and the same was recovered by the said official with the PTL party and the said amount was left by a civilian who escaped, inspite of the authorities chasing him, taking advantage of the darkness . The counsel therefore submitted that the petitioner was negligent in his duty and therefore a very minor punishment was imposed on him, which would not affect hi