IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5255 of 2011 Raj Kumar son of Sri Parmeshwar Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Kunkun Singh Lane, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Pirbahore, Dist. Patna at present working as sub Inspector, Central Industrial Security Force, S.C.C.L. Singerani, P.O. Singerani, Dist. Adilabad (A.P.) ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Central Industrial Security Force through the Director General, C.I.S.F., New Delhi. 3. The Inspector General, Airport Sector, C.I.S.F. Block No. 13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 4. Deputy Inspector General cum Appellate Authority, C.I.S.F. Airport (E &NE) H.Qrs. Kolkata. 5. The Commandant cum Disciplinary Authority C.I.S.F. unit A.S.G. Patna. 6. Assistant Commandant cum Inquiry Officers, CISF, unit A.S.G. Patna. ---Respondents. -------- 04 21.09.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner has enclosed three documents which have been impugned in the present writ petition. By order contained in Annexure-1, the disciplinary authority, on a conclusion of the departmental proceeding, inflicted punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 14440/- to Rs. 13890/- in the time pay band of Rs. 9300- 34,800/- for a period of one year with further direction 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. Annexure-2 is the appellate order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was considered and rejected by a well reasoned order. Annexure-3 is the order passed on the revision application preferred by the petitioner. As many as 03 charges were framed against the petitioner 2 at the enquiry. The documents, in order to prove the charges, were produced and witnesses were examined. On conclusion thereof, the disciplinary authority passed the order (Annexure-1) taking into account all the relevant facts appearing from the record including the nature of allegations/ charges which were held proved at the enquiry. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed appeal which was considered and by a well reasoned order the appellate authority dismissed the appeal observing as under:- “I have carefully gone through the appeal petition, case files and the connected documents held on record. The pleas taken by the appellant are found not satisfactory. On perusal of the appeal it is noticed that many of the pleas quoted by the appellant are found mere contentions and the appellant tried to untrack the charges level against him. The petitioner failed to state anything in his appeal about his absence from duty post. On one hand, the appellant stated that as per Insp/Exe Chanchal Kumar, the appellant was found out side the INT office, SI/ Exe Prem Ranjan and HC/ DVR B.K. Sharma were found making noise and in state of scuffling position. On the other hand, the appellant further stated that no one had heard his noise form INT side and no one disclosed his name having been in the INT office along with SI/Exe Prem Ranjan. The pleas of the appellant are not correct and cannot be accepted. The facts remains that over the issue of excess use of telephone by SI/Exe Prem Ranjan, the HC/ Dvr B.K.Sharma picked up SI/ Exe Prem Ranjan from SHA to INT Section side and there after the appellant also reached INT section by withdrawing himself from the duty post without permission and assaulted SI/Exe Prem Ranjan with help of HC/Dvr B.K. Sharma due to which SI/ Exe Prem Ranjan got injury on his face. Further the appellant‟s contents stating timing of incident, complying of pain and arrival of hospital by SI/Exe Prem Ranjan are also found to be mere pleas of the appellant since there is no denial of incident from any corner. Further the appellant has no right from where the assailant has to take treatment. The pleas of the appellant that he was trapped in the case by the cunning of SI/Exe Prem Ranjan as he raised objection over the 3 excess use of telephone can not be accepted as the offence committed by the appellant has been proved during the course of enquiry. If the SI/Exe Prem Ranjan misused the official telephone, the appellant should have complained to the seniors. But he did not do so and indulged in indisciplinary activities on his own along with HC/Dvr B.K.Sharma which cannot be tolerated in an Armed force of union. The act of the appellant has not only disturbed the security functions in SHA but also tarnished the image of the Force in the public eyes. The kind of way of attack does not matter at all. However, the medical certicate issued by PMCH is crystal clear that SI/Exe Prem Ranjan got facial injury due to physical assault. The appellant was afforded all reasonable opportunities to defend himself. There is no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority has passed the Final order after considering all aspects of the case and evaluation of material evidences held on record. I therefore do not find any mitigating circumstances to interfere into the orders passed by the Disciplinary. Hence, the appeal petition of No. 972180157 SI/Exe Raj Kumar is rejected being devoid of merit.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order he preferred revision before the revisional authority (respondent no.3). The said authority also considered in extenso and did not find any good ground to interfere therewith. The revisional authority rejected the revision observing as under in paragraph nos. 7 and 8:- “7. I have also gone through the revision petition submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was charged for being absent from his duty post without any intimation/permission from the competent authority, made hot arguments with SI/Exe Prem Ranjan who was on duty at X-Ray on the issue of excessive use of INT telephone and beat him up with the help of HC/Dvr B.K.Sharma which resulted in injuries on his face. In the instant case the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of „” Reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 14440/- to Rs. 13890/- in the time pay band of Rs. 9300- 34800 for a period of one year with further direction 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 4 postponing his future increments of pay” for the proven charges. 8. The revision petition and the relevant documents have been gone through in depth. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend the charges levelled against him. The DE has been conducted as per laid down procedure. The penalty awarded to him by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority is found commensurate with the gravity of charges proved in the enquiry. Therefore, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere in this proceeding. His revision petition is, therefore, considered and rejected being devoid of merits.” Learned counsel in support of the application submits that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence during the relevant time. It is submitted that the materials brought on record were wholly deficient to prove the charge. In a departmental proceeding the nature of evidence required to prove the charge/allegation cannot be placed at par with the requirement of proving such allegation/charge in the criminal proceeding. It is not the petitioner’s case that absolutely no material was brought on record by the prosecution to prove the charge. Going by the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was let off with lighter punishment. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)