IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21421 OF 2011 Date:29.07. 2011 Between:- Karamjeet Singh .. Petitioner And The Union of India, rep.by the Principal Secretary, New Delhi and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus by calling the records pertaining to the charge sheet/memorandum No.V- 15014/37(1) KS/RMP(M)/Disc/2010/332, dated 24.02.2010, and the revision order No.V-15017/R-04/DAE/Disc/2010/5865, dated 19.10.2010, of respondent Nos.4 and 5, and declare the action of the respondents in passing the said orders as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. 2. The petitioner is working as SI/Executive, Heavy Water Plant, Manuguru, Khammam. While he was working with respondent No.4 at Mysore, he was entrusted with work of bringing some material from Mumbai to Mysore under Movement Order, dated 30.11.2009. The material was brought to Mysore as per the Movement Order, which shows the armed escort party from RMP Mysore to BARC Mumbai and back with effect from 30.11.2009 to 06.12.2009 to escort ‘special material’ from BARC Mumbai. The petitioner delivered the material safely. On 18.01.2010, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet stating that he willfully disobeyed the lawful orders and existing security instructions endorsed on the movement order, for which, he submitted his reply by representation, dated 21.01.2010, contending that due to sudden development, he was unable to arrange sufficient money and that no mobile phone or contingency money was given to him, and so he was unable to give the daily report and requested to withdraw the charge. His explanation was not considered and an order, dated 24.02.2010, was passed by respondent No.4 imposing the penalty of withholding of one future increment for a period of one year which will not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. Aggrieved thereby, he filed W.P.Nos.32731 and 32732 of 2010 and the same are pending. The petitioner preferred an appeal, dated 15.03.2010, to respondent No.3, who in turn rejected the said appeal by order, dated 04.06.2010. Therefore, the petitioner preferred revision, dated 30.07.2010, to respondent No.5, who in turn rejected it, by order, dated 19.10.2010. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that beyond the circumstances of the petitioner, the petitioner was unable to arrange sufficient money and so he could not give the daily report to the Unit Commander and Unit Control Room; that therefore, the punishment is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 4. By virtue of proceedings, dated 18.01.2010, with regard to some misconduct, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.4. The charge is that the petitioner, being Incharge of Armed Escort party from RMP Mysore to BARC Mumbai and back with effect from 30.11.2009 to 06.12.2009 to escort ‘Special Material’ from BARC Mumbai, willfully disobeyed the lawful orders and existing security instructions in which he had failed to give daily situation report/movement details to the Unit Control Room and to the Unit Commander violating the instructions. As the explanation was not satisfactory, a regular enquiry was conducted. Considering the material on record, he was imposed punishment of withholding of one future increment for a period of one year, which will not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. On appeal, the said order was confirmed and aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected. 5. There cannot be any dispute that the disciplinary authority or in case of appeal, the appellate authority, is vested with power to inflict punishment after conducting an enquiry. Violation of principles of natural justice while conducting enquiry is under challenge. In such a case, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless such a punishment shocks to the conscience of the Court or disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The misconduct alleged is that the petitioner violated the instructions of reporting day-to-day situation or movement details. Therefore, stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is in proportionate to the severity of the misconduct. Therefore, the question of admission does not arise and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21421 OF 2011 Date:29.07.2011 AMD