ORDER

The order of punishment of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The writ petitioner was working as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force. Three charges were framed against him under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules for grave misconduct, which reads as under:

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I "Gross negligence and dereliction of duty in that CISF No.913512988 Constable Susil Kumar of CISF Unit CPT Cochin while detailed for IS duty at RGN Camp Sriperumbutur w.e.f. 29.09.2010 misbehaved with No.8772280177 Swpr P.O.Rajan of CISF Unit VPT Vizag on 02.10.2010 at about 11.30 hrs consuming liquor".

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II "Gross misconduct in that CISF No.913512988 Constable Susil Kumar of CISF Unit CPT Cochin, who was IS duty at RGN Camp Sriperumbutur w.e.f. 29.09.2010 misbehaved with the Officer-In-Charge and used abusive and insubordinate language against him at about 2115 hrs and misbehaved by hashing the door of Officer's living room in the barracks under the influence of Alcohol. This act on the part of No.913512988 Constable Susil Kumar amount to gross misconduct and act of indiscipline being a member of disciplined Force. Hence the charge", ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III "CISF No 913512988 Constable Susil Kumar of CISF Unit CPT Cochin in while on IS duty at RGN Camp Sriperumbutur w.e.f. 29.09.2010 physically assaulted No.872280177 Swpr P.O.Rajan of CISF Unit VPT Viza who was on IS duty at RGN Camp Sriperumbutur, on 02.10.2010 at about 2350 hrs by pressing his neck in the barracks, under the influence of Alcohol, while the later was sleeping. This act of No.913512988 Constable Susil Kumar amounts to grave misconduct, indiscipline and unbecoming a member of the Force. Hence the charge".

3. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the delinquent official and by following the procedures as contemplated under the Rules. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges are proved. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority initially imposed the penalty of postponement of reduction of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty to that of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition and the Revisional Authority set aside the punishment of removal from service and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration and to pass fresh orders.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the Disciplinary Authority, instead of proceeding with the three charges initially framed, added one more charge regarding the previous misconduct and the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the framing of the fourth charge is irregular and the said charge was not originally framed by the authority and therefore, they are not empowered to add the fourth charge when the matter was remanded back to the Revisional Authority. It is contended that after remanding back the case by the Revisional Authority to the Disciplinary Authority, he has to confine the issues only with reference to the charges originally framed and thus, the framing of the fourth charge is untenable and on that ground, the order of punishment is to be set aside.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents disputed the contentions raised by the petitioner by stating that the proved misconducts against the petitioner are serious in nature. However, the punishment of removal from service was modified by the Authorities Competent and thus, no further leniency is required, as far as the proved misco