HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 12335 OF 2006 DATED 28th SEPTEBMER, 2011. BETWEEN Harjinder Singh ……Petitioner and The Commandant, CISF Unit, BHEL, Hyderabad and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 12335 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner while working as a Constable in the respondent-CISF was charge sheeted on 6.4.1998 alleging disobedience and indiscipline stated to have been committed him. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 9.4.1998 to the said charge sheet, an enquiry was initiated and thereafter the punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 10.12.1998. The appeal preferred by him ended in dismissal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10748 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 3.9.2004 directing the respondent-appellate authority to reconsider the matter and impose any punishment other than removal from service. Pursuant to the said order, the appellate authority reconsidered the matter and passed the order dated 21.10.2004 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of Rs.3050/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590 for a period of five years from the date of reporting to duty after reinstatement in service. In the said order, the appellate authority further observed that the petitioner would not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction of pay and that on expiry of the period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the third respondent against the order of the appellate authority dated 21.10.2004 came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2006. Hence the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have failed to consider that one Mastan Sing who was another charged employee along with the petitioner was imposed a lesser punishment for the very self-same charges, whereas the petitioner was awarded with a major penalty and therefore the action of the respondent authorities was in flagrant violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. A perusal of the material on record would disclose that on 23.1.1998 a musical night function was organized by BHEL and in connection with the same, the CISF personnel were deployed along with local police for duty in the stadium. In the said function, though the petitioner was not having a valid pass to enter into the VIP gallery, he along with others viz., Mastan Singh and P.P. Sing, SI forcibly entered and created nuisance which have been corroborated by the evidence of prosecution witnesses. When the petitioner was asked not to create any nuisance, he abused and assaulted the senior officials. Based on the same, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down under the CISF Rules. It may be noticed from the record that the authorities have afforded reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case. Thus I find no infirmity or illegalities in the enquiry conducted by the respondent authorities. As a result thereof, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry conducted by the respondent authorities was against the principles of natural justice etc., merits no consideration. Coming to the other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the other charged employee viz., Masthan Singh who was charged with similar charges with that of the petitioner was imposed a lesser punishment whereas the petitioner was imposed major punishment, it is may be noticed from a perusal of the material on record that the charges levelled against the petitioner and proved were grave in nature as compared to the charges levelled against the said Masthan Singh. However, it is not for this Court to go into the question whether the petitioner should be imposed the same punishment as has been imposed on Masthan Sing. In matters of these nature, this Court would not normally sit in as a Court of appeal and reappraise the evidence placed on record in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner merits no consideration. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the proven charge against the petitioner and thus the orders of the respondent authorities below are wholly untenable and not sustainable under law, 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 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. I n B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996)ILLJ 1231 SC a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court 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. 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 28th September, 2011. Msnro