HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 24257 OF 2005 . DATED 19th September, 2011 BETWEEN V.J. Rama Rao …Petitioner And Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Ministry of Home Affairs, Nuclear Fuel Complex, ECIL Post, Hyderabad,and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 24257 of 2005 ORDER: Questioning the action of the DIG, CISF, the second respondent in enhancing the punishment by reducing the pay by one stage for a period of one year and observing that during the period of reduction he would not be entitled to any increments and it would have cumulative effect, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as a CISF constable on 20.10.1991 and while working as such under the control of the first respondent, he was charge sheeted on 8.2.2002 on the ground that he committed gross misconduct and indiscipline. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the said charge sheet on 13.2.2002, the respondent-CISF conducted due enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Based on the enquiry report and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the said enquiry report, the first respondent held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and imposed upon him the punishment of withholding of increments for a period of two years which would have the effect of postponing further increments. Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent dated 23/24.09.2002, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The lower appellate authority confirmed the order of the primary authority by its order dated 21.2.2003, however it imposed the punishment against the petitioner that the pay be reduced by one stage from Rs.3425/- to Rs.3350/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590 for a period of one year with immediate effect and further directed that the petitioner would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of the period of one year, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. The petitioner, not being satisfied with the order dated 21.2.2003 of the lower appellate authority, preferred further appeal before the third respondent, who by his order dated 16.09.2003 confirmed the order of the lower appellate authority dated 21.2.2003. Hence the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are showing vindictive attitude towards the petitioner and that they cannot indiscriminate the petitioner among other employees. He complained that the petitioner did not know Hindi language and as such the question of misbehaving with Hindi speaking respondent officials would not arise. He argued that the punishment imposed against the petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner had indulged in indisciplined activities such as misbehavior, threatening his superiors, leadership activities, refusing to receive the official communication etc.,. He submitted that discipline is an essential feature of armed force and the petitioner being a disciplined armed force member cannot commit acts of misbehavior with his superiors. He submitted that the respondents have conducted enquiry in due procedure as laid down in the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 and rightly imposed the punishment based on the proven chargers and hence there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the findings recorded by the respondents-CISF. Perused the case file. Having gone through the material placed on record, I find no infirmity or illegality in the orders of the respondent authorities. The three articles of charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved in the departmental enquiry and elaborate discussion was made with regard to the same. The fact finding authority after conducting a detailed enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity to the charged employee (petitioner) recorded its findings, which are perfectly based on the evidence on record. Thus it can be said that the enquiry contemplated under rule 36 of CISF rules has been duly conducted as per the procedure laid down therein by affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was highly disproportionate to the proven charge against the petitioner and thus the orders of the authorities below are wholly untenable and not sustainable under law, it may be noticed that it is well settled principle of law that once the petitioner was found guilty of the charge levelled against him reflecting lack of integrity on his part and also failure to discharge his duty as per the rules of Central Industrial Security Force, the appropriate punishment is called for and there would be no room for lenience so as to maintain discipline in the Force. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996)ILLJ 1231 SC a three-Judge Bench observed that the High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. Similar view was taken in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora AIR 1997 SC 1030 that the Court would not intervene unless the punishment was wholly disproportionate. It was further observed that if the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal principles, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition warranting interference with the orders impugned in the present Writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 19th December, 2011. Msnro