THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1033 OF 2004 DATED 1st FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN: V.Venkateshwarlu … Petitioner A n d The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (SZ), Ministry of Home Affairs, Rajaji Bhavan, ‘D’ Block, Besant Nagar, Chennai, and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1033 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short, ‘CISF’), assails the order dated 17.12.1998 passed by the Commandant, CISF, Bellampalli, Adilabad District, imposing upon him the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without effect on future increments and directing that the period of suspension undergone by him be treated as such. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 21.05.1999 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Chennai, confirming the said punishment in appeal. The petitioner was stationed as a Constable at the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bellampally, and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 08.05.1998 on the following three charges: “ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I Gross indiscipline and dereliction of duty in that No.8644770049 Constable V.Venkateswarlu of CISF Unit, SCCL (S) Srirampur area while on ‘C’ Shift duty from 1800 hrs on 6.3.98 to 0600 hrs on 7.3.98 at IK-I incline at Vehicle entry gate No.1, and allowed an empty truck bearing No.AP-21-U-0947 for coal loading without any documents. Hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II Gross misconduct on the part of No.864470049 Constable V.Venkateswarlu of CISF Unit, SCCL (S) SRP Area while he was detailed for ‘C’ Shift duty from 1800 hrs on 6.3.98 to 0600 hrs on 7.3.98 at IK-I incline vehicle entry gate No.1, had connived and abetted with SCCL employees in pilferage of coal without any authentic documents. Hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III Gross misconduct, negligence and disobedience of orders given by his seniors in that No.864470049 Constable V.Venkateswarlu while on ‘C’ Shift duty from 1800 hrs on 6.3.98 to 0600 hrs on 7.3.98 at IK-I incline vehicle entry gate No.1 had failed to check the Driver and Cleaner of the truck bearing No.AP-21-U-0947 and allowed them to runaway from IK-1 incline. Hence the charge.” As his explanation dated 16.05.1998 was found unsatisfactory, an enquiry was instituted into the matter. The Enquiry Officer however held that all three charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued notice dated 10.11.1998 to the petitioner proposing to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, indicating his reasons therefor. After considering the petitioner’s representation dated 26.11.1998 in response thereto, the Disciplinary Authority held that the petitioner was guilty of all three charges under his order dated 17.12.1998 and imposed upon him the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year clarifying that the reduction would not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The Disciplinary Authority further directed that the period of suspension from 23.03.1998 to 15.10.1998 undergone by the petitioner be treated as such and that he would not be entitled for anything other than the subsistence allowance for the said period. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 20.01.1999 and by order dated 21.05.1999, the Appellate Authority being the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Chennai, confirmed the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the disciplinary action taken against his client was illegal, being based on findings which were perverse in as much as material evidence had been overlooked. It is his case that the petitioner was not liable under any of the three charges as is evidenced by the depositions of the various witnesses examined during the course of the enquiry. The learned counsel took me through the enquiry proceedings at length to substantiate his contention. Having considered the material on record, I am not convinced that a case is made out for interference by this Court on the ground of perversity of findings. The evidence adduced during the course of the enquiry clearly supports the possibility of involvement of the petitioner in the offence. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority or to substitute its view even if two views are possible on the given facts. The evidence brought on record clearly establishes that the petitioner had a conversation with the owner of the truck bearing No.AP-21-U-0947 at 23.00 hours on 06.03.1998 and the same was noticed by his fellow Constable (PW.2). The said fact was reported by PW.2 to his superior (PW.1). Thereafter, the said truck was driven into the premises at around 04.00 hours on 07.03.1998 and was loaded with coal without proper documentation. PW.2’s evidence in this regard is very much relevant as it indicates contradictions in the stand put forth by the petitioner at different stages. Further, the established facts reveal that the driver and the cleaner of the truck who were last seen talking to the petitioner were allowed to run away from the premises. PW.3, a CISF Constable who is junior to the petitioner, stated to the effect that the said two persons, while in his custody at the gate, were called out side by the petitioner and while the petitioner was talking to them the owner of the truck came there and took them away. There is no reason as to why PWs.2 and 3, who are fellow Constables of the petitioner, would speak against him. It is not his case that they have any enmity with him. In such circumstances, sufficient material existed for the Disciplinary Authority to record a finding of guilt against the petitioner in respect of the three charges. No material evidence was overlooked by the authorities in coming to such conclusion. That being so, I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, were perverse. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner having been found guilty of all three charges levelled against him was let off with a relatively minor punishment. The Disciplinary Authority’s order indicates that though the authority was of the opinion that the petitioner deserved a stringent punishment, a lenient view was taken in the matter considering his young age and future career. The Appellate Authority also voiced a similar opinion. I therefore find no reason to interfere with the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, thereafter confirmed in appeal. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 1st FEBRUARY, 2010 PGS