IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.A.No.3314 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.27124 of 2025

1. Union of India Represented by Secretary to the Government Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Director General Central Industrial Security Force CGO Complex, New Delhi. 3. The Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force Southern Sector, New War Memorial Chennai-600 009.

4. The Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force South Zone Head Quarters Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.

5. The Group Commandant Central Industrial Security Force Group Head Quarters, Cochin, Kerala State.

6. The Assistant Commandant Central Industrial Security Force Unit MRPL Mangalore – 574 030. … Appellants Vs.

H.K.Mohapatra No.901405959 Constable CISF Unit MRPL Mangalore – 575 030. ... Respondent Prayer:

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order of the Hon’ble Judge in W.P.No.32106 of 2015 dated 27.09.2024 and allow this writ appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran For Respondent : Mr.R.Thiagarajan *****

J U D G M E N T

(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,)

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated

27.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 32106 of 2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge set aside the punishment imposed on the respondent/writ petitioner reducing his pay by three stages from Rs.10,060 + Grade Pay Rs.2,800/- to Rs.8,980 + Grade Pay Rs.2,800/- in Pay Band-I (Rs.5,200–20,200) for a period of three years, as ordered by the Appellate Authority, and further modified the punishment to a reduction of pay by one stage with Grade Pay Rs.2,800/- in the same Pay Band for a period of three years.

2. The respondent/writ petitioner, while working as a Constable, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a memorandum of charge dated 09.03.2013, alleging that he attempted to conceal an amount of Rs.765/- in a black pouch kept beneath a stone. It was further alleged that, on noticing the inspection team, he did not permit them to recover the concealed money. Another allegation was that he was not permitted to carry an amount exceeding Rs.20/-, as per the instructions issued from time to time. The amount of Rs.765/- was treated as illegal gratification collected by him.

3. The explanation submitted by the respondent was not found satisfactory. After conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charge stood proved. Upon consideration of the enquiry report and the further explanation of the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. In appeal, the Appellate Authority modified the punishment. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 32106 of 2025. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and modified the punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court by way of the present writ appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, observed that, in the absence of any denial, the respondent had in fact concealed the amount of Rs.765/- beneath a stone behind his place of work. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses examined during the enquiry, it was held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding concealment of the amount could not be faulted. However, the learned Single Judge further observed that, in the absence of any cogent evidence to establish that the said amount represented illegal gratification, the finding of the Enquiry Officer to that extent was perverse. Consequently, the only misconduct that remained proved was the possession of an amount in excess of Rs.20/-, contrary to the Unit Standing Instructions. Thus, the finding that the charge stood proved in its en