HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 24436 OF 2003 DATED 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN G.N.Rao …..Petitioner and The Inspector General.SWS,CISF Sector, Head Quarters, RCFL Complex, Chimbur, Mumbai-1, and ors …Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 24436 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a constable on 15.09.1989 in the first respondent-CISF. While he was working as such under the control of the third respondent- CISF, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with misconduct and indiscipline irregularities said to have been committed by him. Pursuant thereto, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 15.5.1996 by the third respondent, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation within the stipulated time, denying the charges levelled against him. Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 30.10.1996 wherein it was mentioned that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved beyond any reasonable doubt except article of charge No.3 which was held disproved against the petitioner. To the said inquiry report, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.12.1996 disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer. Thereafter the third respondent-disciplinary authority passed an order dated 3.1.1997 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said order of removal from service dated 3.1.1997, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who dismissed the same by order dated 24.3.1997. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the first respondent, who by his order dated 10.11.2001 modified the order of removal from service to that of reducing his pay by one stage from Rs.3030/- to Rs.2960/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.2750-4400/- for a period of two years with effect from the date of joining on reinstatement in service. The revisional authority observed that the petitioner would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Hence the present writ petition. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner had suffered as many as eight penalties/warnings on different occasions earlier during his brief carrier. Denying the averment of the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted in perfunctory manner, it is stated that the enquiry officer had conducted the departmental enquiry as per the rules/regulations and the procedure prescribed therein. It is further stated that after going through the entire evidence on record, the disciplinary authority found that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct and indiscipline acts of arguing in arrogant manner with his superiors, misbehaved with Dy. Commandant and remained absent from the special training and other regimental functions for which he was deserved to be punished severely. It is added that though the charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved in the departmental enquiry, the first respondent-review authority took a lenient view in the matter and modified the punishment of removal from service. He therefore submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned in the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was conducted by an incompetent authority and therefore the enquiry report submitted by such incompetent authority in perfunctory manner is unsustainable on record. He asserted that while dealing with the Rule 31(e) of the CISF Rules, 1969, the authorities have no power to impose punishment of withholding increments with cumulative effect. In support of the said contention he relied on the judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.10299 of 1988, dated 09.07.1992. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the inquiry was not conducted by the competent authority is concerned, the petitioner has not questioned the same before any other forum till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and enquiry was allowed to be concluded and therefore such a contention cannot be gone into at this stage. Further it is to be seen that the contention that enquiry officer should be superior officer than the complainant merits no consideration. It is clear from the material on record that the Inquiry Officer has conducted the departmental inquiry as per the rules and regulations and following the due procedure in vogue. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner basing on the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.10299 of 1988 is that the respondents authorities have no power to impose punishment of withholding increments with cumulative effect. Rule 31 (e) of the CISF Rules, 1969 contemplates for minor punishments and it lays down withholding of increments or promotion. The said provision does not make any further qualifying statement. However Rule 40 of the Rules provides that in the case of withholding of increment as a punishment, the order shall state the period for which the increment is to be withheld and whether it shall have the effect of postponing the further increments. Thus, the provisions under Rule 31(e) have to be read in consonance with the provision of Rule 40 and if so done, the said contention of the learned Counsel merits no consideration. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that after the Fifth Pay Commission came into force, the respondent authorities have not fixed his pay correctly in consonance with the order of the first respondent dated 10.11.2001. It appears, that the petitioner had not made any effort to put forth his grievance before the competent authorities to rectify the mistake, if any. Without such an effort on the part of the petitioner and the consequential order thereon, this Court cannot direct the authorities to do the needful, if any. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not probe into fixation of the pay of the petitioner, without inviting an order from the respondents in the first instance. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating grounds 5 to 8 raised in the Writ affidavit, submitted that there are several discrepancies in the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. The law is well settled that this Court cannot sit in appeal and find out sufficiency/insufficiency of evidence in support of the charge. Only when it is a case of no evidence, this Court may interfere with the order of punishment, if the facts of such case so warrants. The petitioner failed to bring his case within the purview of such grounds for interference and therefore the finding of the inquiry officer on the basis of evidence adduced before it cannot be said to be without any basis. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 19th September, 2011. MsnrO