-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1035 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 1035 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 1035 OF 2006 Vilas S. Shejwal. ... Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.K. Dhara for the Petitioner. Mr. D.A. Athawale for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND : J.N. PATEL AND : J.N. PATEL AND K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 14TH JULY, 2008. : 14TH JULY, 2008. : 14TH JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for Union of India is not in a position to assist this Court in the matter as he has no brief and no instructions. 2. The Petitioner has impugned the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Inspector General of CISF in the matter of punishment imposed on the Petitioner. The Petitioner was charged for the misconduct which reads as follows : "Force No.84652030 HC/Fire (Under Supervision) Vilas Sejwal of CISF Unit, ONGC Hazira had talked over phone unnecessarily without any valid reason three-four times at an interval of one-one and half hours between 16.30 hrs. and 23.30 hrs. on 10.8.2004 to Smt. -:2:- Chandrika D. Waghela wife of constable V.D. Kumar in his absence in the allotted Govt. Residential Quarter No.A7/32 to his mobile phone which is a grave misconduct, misbehaviour and indiscipline for a disciplined armed force members". 3. Due departmental enquiry was made in the matter and the charge was proved. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he was not given an appropriate opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. It is the case of the Petitioner that the punishment imposed upon him is dis-proportionate on the ground that his defence has not been considered. 4. We have gone through the inquiry report and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority which have dealt with the matter in detail and in its order he has also observed that the Enquiry Officer in his findings proved the charge so levelled against the Appellant by the prosecution witnesses. Further from the records it is also seen that after the incident, the Appellant had gone to the quarters of Smt. Chandrika Waghela and requested her to excuse him. The activities on the part of the Appellant are contrary to the force discipline as he had no reason to make telephones repeatedly to the wife of his subordinate colleague -:3:- with dishonest intention when he was well aware about the fact that Const. V.D. Kumar was away on course. By doing so, the Appellant had committed a grave misconduct. There is no illegality or error committed in conducting Departmental Enquiry. On the other hand, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is not dis-proportionate to the nature of charge i.e he has been only punished by way of "reduction of pay to the minimum stage, i.e. from Rs.3965/- to Rs.3200/- for a period of one year, with further order that he will not earn the increments of pay during the period of the reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay by the Disciplinary Authority viz. Sr. Commandant, CISF Unit, ONGC Mumbai, vide final order dated 18.01.2005." 5. It is the case of gross misbehaviour. Considering the grave misconduct committed by him, we find no reason to interfere in the matter. 6. The Petition is dismissed. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. PATEL,J.) PATEL,J.) PATEL,J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)