O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call quash for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 31.07.2012 in his order No.V-15014/L &R/SS/Rev/AS/2012-276 received by the petitioner on 24.8.2012 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in his Appellate order No.V-11014/CISF/DOS/Appeal-AS/2012/521, dated 13.02.2012, confirming the order passed by the 4th respondent in his original order No.V-15014/CISF/BSSC/DISC/AS/2011-7157, dated 22.11.2011 and quash the same and to direct the respondent to pay all benefits.

2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned punishment order, wherein it has imposed a reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.8520/- to Rs.7890/- in the pay band of Rs.5200-Rs.20,200/- Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- for a period of two years with effect from the date of issue of the order and consequentially the petitioner was not entitled to increments during the period of reduction and also the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Aggrieved over the said punishment, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

3.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Internal Security Force as Constable. A charge sheet, dated 23.08.2011 was issued under Rule 36 for the articles of charge that the petitioner was on duty on 11.08.2011 and on 12.08.2011 was allotted a striking reserve duty with Arms and Ammunition. On being checked by the 'C' shift in-charge, it was noticed that the petitioner was not behaving normally and reported for duty after consuming alcohol, as smell of alcohol was coming from his breath. Then, the matter was reported to the higher officials who also checked the petitioner and found him to have consumed alcohol and it was stated that the petitioner had committed an act of gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty.

4.The petitioner submitted a written statement of defence and denied the article of charge, then the respondents had appointed an Enquiry Officer and the petitioner had attended the enquiry and he was allowed to cross examine the respondents witness and the principles of natural justice was followed. After completion of the enquiry, the report was submitted to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority called for an explanation to the enquiry report and thereafter, the respondents have imposed the said punishment. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was rejected on 13.02.2012. Then, the petitioner filed a revision and the same was rejected on 31.07.2012. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5.The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that since it is a disciplined service, the petitioner is expected to follow all the rules and regulations in a strict way. The petitioner was granted ample opportunity and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. All the points raised by the petitioner are considered in accordance to law. Since the charge against the petitioner was proved during the departmental enquiry, the appeal and revision authorities did not find any cogent reason to interfere and hence, the petitioner's appeal and revision were rejected.

6.The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not being heard cannot be construed as personal hearing in appellate stage, since rules does not contemplate personal hearing in appellate stage. Therefore, it is not mandatory that the opportunity of personal hearing has to be given at the appeal stage.

Therefore, there is no infirmity in the punishment imposed. The petitioner was taken to the Doctor and on seeing his breath the Doctor has given a certificate that the petitioner had consumed alcohol. The Doctor is an expert person, who can differentiate cough syrup and alcohol. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he had taken cough syrup cannot be accepted and the Writ Petition deserves to be di