HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 15038 OF 2005 . DATED 14th September, 2011 BETWEEN Y.Subba Rao …Petitioners And The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Chennai and anr ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 15038 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is appointed as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force and posted in its unit at Visakhaatnam Steel Plant at Viskhapatnam. While so he was charge sheeted on 19.1.2004 on the charge that the petitioner was found in possession of Rs.100/- which he gained illegally while he was discharging his duty. Denying the said charge, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 17.03.2004. Dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was ordered to enquire into the authenticity of the articles of charge framed against the petitioner. The duly constituted disciplinary enquiry authority, following the due procedure laid down under the relvant CISF Rules conducted the enquiry and came to the conclusion that the charged official, the petitioner, had tried to disown the illegal excess money of Rs.100/- by taking from his pant pocket and dropped it immediately on seeing the CIW in order to avoid being caught by CIW and escape from subsequent disciplinary proceedings. It was alleged that the said money was gained by the charged official, the petitioner, through illegal means during his duty hours. Since the money was seized immediately after closure of his duty at his duty post, no legal source of said money was established by the petitioner. Holding so, the disciplinary authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Rule 32 read with Schedule-I and with Rule 34(V) of CISF Rules, 2001 ordered that the pay of the petitioner to a lower stage i.e. to Rs.3,200/- in the time scale of pay for a period of five years be given with immediate effect. It was further ordered that the petitioner 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 meet the ends of justice. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent. The lower appellate authority, upon consideration of the material on record, by order dated 13.5.2005 modified the punishment imposed by the fact finding authority to that of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years which will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Questioning the legality and validity of the said order of the lower appellate authority, first respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner putforth several arguments and submitted that the complainant who made a complaint against the petitioner was later appointed as an enquiry officer and though the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting not to have the enquiry being conducted by the said officer, the same was not considered and disposed of. He asserted that both the authorities have failed to consider that the alleged check was conducted after the duty hours of the charged officer (the petitioner) and the alleged amount was not found in the possession of the petitioner and there was no proper investigation regarding the source of the said alleged amount and no proper person had given any complaint with regard to the same. He argued that in the enquiry no independent witness was examined to prove the charge levelled against the petitioner and that the petitioner who could not fulfill their illegal demand was made a scape goat in the concocted enquiry. He submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the charge imposed against the petitioner and thus the orders of the authorities below are wholly untenable and not sustainable under law. Perused the case file meticulously. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner had submitted representation on 6.4.2002 to the disciplinary authority to appoint any officer from the unit as an enquiry officer other than the complainant. The said request of the petitioner was in fact considered and rejected. The said rejection was not challenged before any appropriate authority or Court of law and the same has been allowed to attain finality. It is to be seen from the record that the petitioner has not produced any independent defence witness in his support. During the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer examined all the prosecution witnesses namely Inspector K. S.Srinivasan (PW.1.), Constable Ll.Jayaram (PW.2) Constable B.R. Rao (PW.3) Inspector G.C. Bandhopadhyay (PW.4) and Shri Harichand, Assistant Command (PW.5). During the enquiry the petitioner was given ample opportunities to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The fact finding authority recorded a finding that the corroborated statements of P.Ws.1,2 and 3 reveal that on seeing the jeep, the charged officer immediately dropped from his pocket the illegal money and tried to escape from being caught with money and the Inspector/CTW on witnessing the action of the petitioner, searched the money he dropped and collected the same in the presence of the petitioner. Even the corroborative statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 disclose that the charged officer, the petitioner, has admitted his guilt and did not make any contradictory statement by adducing evidence. It may be further noticed from the record that the alleged money was gained by the petitioner through illegal means during the duty hours at his duty post and in as much as the said money was seized immediately after closure hours of his duty at his duty post, no legal source of said money was established by the petitioner. Even before the lower appellate authority, the petitioner did not prove his case to any further extent. The lower appellate authority, upon considering the contentions of the petitioner and material placed on record, confirmed the order of the fact finding authority, but, considering the fact that the punishment awarded by it is quite on higher side, it reduced the punishment to that of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years which will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. From the above it is clear that the enquiry contemplated under rule 36 of CISF rules has been duly conducted as per the procedure laid down therein by affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the charge imposed against the petitioner and thus the orders of the authorities below are wholly untenable and not sustainable under law, it may be noticed that It is well settled that once the petitioner is found guilty of the charge levelled against him reflecting lack of integrity on his part and also failure to discharge his duty as per the rules of Central Industrial Security Force, the appropriate punishment is called for and there would be no room for lenience so as to maintain discipline in the Force. I n B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996)ILLJ 1231 SC a three-Judge Bench observed that the High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. Similar view was taken in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora AIR 1997 SC 1030 that the Court will not intervene unless the punishment is wholly disproportionate. It was further observed that if the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Miconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal principles, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition warranting interference with the orders impugned in the present Writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 14th September, 2011 . Msnro