IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9099 of 2009 NIKESH GUNJAN, SON OF SHRI RAM UDAGAR CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAROUR, POLICE STATION MUFFASIL MUNGER, DISTRICT MUNGER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, NEW DELHI. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, EASTERN ZONE HEADQUARTER, BORING ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRICL SECURITY FORCE, EASTERN SONE HEADQUARTER, PATNA. 4. THE COMMANDANT, CENTRIAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, UNI PT. PARADEEP, ORRIASSA. ----------- 05. 06.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is Constable serving the Central Industrial Security Force(CISF) is aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2005, Annexure-4 whereunder after conclusion of the departmental proceeding he has been punished and awarded punishment of demotion by three stages for four years and no increment for those four years. Against the order dated 3.2.2005 petitioner filed appeal and revision, which was dismissed under orders dated 21.1.2006 and 21.4.2009, Annexures-5 and 7. The appellate and revisional orders have also been challenged in the instant writ application. 3. From perusal of the three orders it appears that petitioner was proceeded against for illegal collection of Rs.31/- in an unauthorized manner from the truck owners visiting the dock while petitioner was manning the dock gate. Aforesaid charge was refuted by the petitioner stating that while entering the dock gate petitioner did not inform the competent authority that - 2 - he has come to the dock with Rs.31/- in his pocket and the allegation that he collected the amount from the drivers coming to the dock is not correct. In support of the plea that petitioner did not collect any amount from the drivers, it is submitted that none of the drivers visiting the dock on that particular day reported against the petitioner nor they were examined in the proceeding. In such view of the matter it is submitted that punishment of demotion by there stages for four years and no increment for those four years is too severe to have been imposed on the petitioner. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union as also having noticed the fact that none of the drivers made any complaint against the petitioner, I set aside the impugned punishment/appellate/revisional orders dated 3.2.2005, 21.1.2006 and 21.4.2009, Annexures-4, 5 and 7 and remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority directing him to pass punishment order by reducing the punishment. The arrears of increment if not released in the light of the earlier punishment order be released forthwith. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)