IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4319 of 2006 Between: Sanjay tomar, S/o. Mahipal Singh, HPCL unit, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security force, Ministery of Home Affiars, Chennai. 2 The Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security - Force, South Zone Had Quaters, Rajai Bhavan, Chennai. 3 The Commandant, Central Industrial Security force, Vishakapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ Order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pay and allowance of the petitioner by setting aside the punishment imposed by the third respondent and latter modiﬁed by punishment imposed by the third respondent and latter modiﬁed by the second respondent in his proceedings bearing No. V.11014/90/04/L&R(SZ) 2885 dt. 13.5.2005 as illega and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: C.VANI REDDY(SC FOR ADDL.CENTRAL GOVT) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 4319 OF 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the pay and allowances of the petitioner by setting aside the punishment imposed by 3rd respondent and later modiﬁed by 2nd respondent vide his proceedings bearing No.V.11014/90/04/L&R(SZ)2885 dated 13.5.2005 and conﬁrmed by 1st respondent in his proceedings bearing No.V.11015/ST/SS/REV/2005/1713 dated 15.9.2005, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the petitioner, while working as Constable at HPCL Unit of the CISF, Malkapuram of Visakhapatnam District, was proceeded with departmentally by issuing a charge sheet alleging that he had engaged a civilian by name K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju to collect illegal gratiﬁcation from the truck drivers and the said civilian was caught by Intelligence staﬀ on 15.5.2004 and thus the petitioner indulged in insubordination. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the same, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of “reduction of his pay to the lower stage i.e. Rs.3,050/- for a period of ﬁve years which will have the eﬀect of postponing his future increments of pay”. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal in part and modiﬁed the said punishment to that of “reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and after the expiry of the period the reduction will have the eﬀect of postponing his future increments of pay”. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner further carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent refused to interfere with the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that absolutely there was no evidence to show that the petitioner has collected illegal gratiﬁcation from the lorry owners through one K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju. Neither the petitioner knows anything about K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju nor the said K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju was examined as a witness during the course of domestic enquiry or the petitioner was directed to cross-examine him. The petitioner, during the course of domestic enquiry, in fact, requested the authorities to produce the said K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju for examination in the enquiry, so as to enable him to cross-examine the said person, but, in spite of several requests, the said K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju was not produced. Only on the basis of a purported statement said to have been recorded in the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charge and he was imposed with a major penalty of reduction of pay to the lower stage i.e. Rs.3,050/- for a period of ﬁve years with cumulative eﬀect, which was modiﬁed to that of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when the person, who is alleged to have given a statement, is not examined in the domestic enquiry, it cannot be said that the charge against the petitioner is proved; therefore, such a punishment could not have been imposed by the respondents in the absence of any proper evidence. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in spite of best eﬀorts made by the disciplinary authority, the said K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju could not be produced in the enquiry and since there was a statement recorded by the preliminary enquiry oﬃcer, that was relied upon by the Department and on that basis the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charge. He further contended that in a domestic enquiry, such evidence also can be taken into consideration for the purpose of holding the petitioner guilty and that the Department itself has taken a lenient view of the matter and the appellate authority has already reduced the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority; therefore, no ground is made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned proceedings and other material made available on record. In the counter ﬁled before this Court, the respondents have categorically admitted that in spite of their best eﬀorts the said K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju could not be produced in the domestic enquiry to conﬁrm to the authenticity of the preliminary enquiry report and also he could not be produced for being cross-examined by the petitioner herein. Though the statement made by K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju during the domestic enquiry cannot be brushed aside, but if it is not proved by any other independent evidence, the weightage that can be given to it is not much. Therefore, I am of the opinion, there was absolutely no reliable evidence before the enquiry oﬃcer to prove the charge alleged against the petitioner. However, as the petitioner has not made any allegation of mala ﬁdes etc. against the respondents, including the enquiry oﬃcer and the disciplinary authority, it cannot be said that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the respondents is invalid. Taking the overall circumstances into consideration, I deem it appropriate to modify the impugned order to that of reduction of three incremental stages for a period of two years, without cumulative eﬀect. The order passed by 3rd respondent, as modiﬁed by 2nd respondent and conﬁrmed by 1st respondent, is modified to this extent. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any arrears of salary etc. in consequence of this order. All his increments shall be notionally calculated and the monetary beneﬁt shall be given with effect from 1st November, 2008. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 21-10-2008. MVB.