IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10540 of 2011 Krishna Kumar S/o Sri Shyam Kishore Yadav resident of vill- Anandpur, P.S. Surajgarha, Distt. Lakhisarai at present posted as constable bearing no. 921406017 C.I.S.F. unit Airport Security Group Imphal, Manipur. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force Ministry of Home Affairs Airport Sector, Head Quarter 13 C.C.O. Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03. 3. Additional Director General C.I.S.F. Ministry of Home Affairs Airport Sector 13 C.C.O. complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03. 4. The Inspector General C.I.S.F. (Ministry of Home Affairs) Airport Sector, 13 C.C.O. Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03. 5. The Deputy Inspector General, Airport ( E and NE) Headquarter Kolkatta C.I.S.F. Ministry of Home Affairs premises no. 553 Kolkatta Township Karba, Kolkatta 107. 6. The Commandant C.I.S.F. ( Ministry of Home Affairs) Airport Security Group Patna-14 (Bihar) 7. The Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F. (Ministry of Home Affairs) A.S.G. Unit Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi. (Jharkhand) ---Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate. For the Union of India: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh CGC. ----------- 02 06.07.2011 Heard both sides. Initially this Court was inclined to dismiss the application for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the pleadings on record. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in the present matter and the said writ application was entertained and disposed of by order contained in Annexure-8, wherby the appellate order and the revisional order was/were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The appellate Court, in the light of said order of this Court, reconsidered the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 12.11.2007 (Annexure-5), inflicting punishments on him under Rule 34(4) of the 2 Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. The appellate authority, on a consideration of the matter, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The said order is Annexure-9, which is impugned in the present writ proceeding. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed revision before the revisional authority which was considered and rejected by order dated 12th July, 2010 (Annexure-10). Said order has also been impugned. While posted at Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi, a proceeding was levied against the petitioner in which article of charge(s) was/were framed and served on him. Two charges were framed, as would appear from the original order (Annexure-5) as well as the appellate order. Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry in which several witnesses on behalf of the Department as well as the delinquent petitioner were produced. On a consideration of the materials brought on record, enquiry office held both the charges proved. It is admitted at Bar that the enquiry report together with notice to submit response thereto, was served, whereafter the petitioner submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority by a detailed and reasoned order concurring with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer inflicted punishment in the shape of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay from Rs. 3965/- to Rs. 3795/- for a period of two years with immediate effect. It is further ordered that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction, and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. Learned counsel, while assailing the order, submits that 3 charge no.2 related to the previous conduct of the petitioner earning him certain punishments. It is submitted that inclusion of said charge has vitiated the proceeding. It is also submitted that considering the article of charge the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate. The appellate Court, on remand, considered the memo of appeal, and after having delineated the two charges which found/held proved in the enquiry found and observed as under:- “I have carefully considered the appeal preferred by the appellant, the departmental proceeding files, findings of the Enquiry officer and other related documents held on record and I have applied my mind to the case. I find that the Articles of charge leveled against the appellant was held proved on the basis of evidence held on record. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry in a fair and judicious manner and afforded him all reasonable opportunities to rebut the adverse evidence and to submit sufficient material in support of his defense but the appellant, however, failed to do so. There is also no material irregularity or miscarriage of justice in this case. The Disciplinary Authority has discussed the matter in his final order dated 12.11.2007 after considering all aspects of the case held on record and awarded the penalty of “ Reduction of pay by two stages in the time sale of pay from Rs. 3965/- to Rs. 3795/- for a period of two years with immediate effect. It is further ordered that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay” to the appellant vide Final Order No. (1696) dated 12.11.2007 for the above said misconduct. The appellant has not come up with any cogent and logical reason that warrants consideration. Many other pleas putforth by the appellant in his appeal do not have any merit.” The revisional authority also concurred with the view taken by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. While exercising power of judicial review in such matter, the 4 Court would not sit as a Court of appeal. The Court has only to satisfy from the materials on record as to whether there is any breach of the Rule and/or the Rules of natural justice in the decision making process adopted by the authority while proceeding with the departmental enquiry. I have perused the order passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure-5). The order sets out in detail the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and conclusions derived therefrom. In my view, petitioner has failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the decision making process. Disproportionality of punishment can be looked into if it shocks the conscience of the Court. Petitioner was serving Central Industrial Security Force. The articles of charge relates to indiscipline and misbehaviour which held to be proved. In my view, based on materials on record, it cannot be said that the punishment inflicted is disproportionate. The application is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)