THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3522 OF 2008 Dt: 17th March 2008 Between: K. Mashanna …Petitioner and The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), CISF Unit, DSP, Durgapur, Budwan District, West Bengal & another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3522 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as Head Constable in the CISF. He was sanctioned government accommodation, when he was working at BDL, Bhanur, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the year 1996. Thereafter, he was transferred to XI Reserve Battalion. Arakkonam. He was granted permission to retain the quarter at Bhanur, up to 1.6.1997. Even after the expiry of the period, he did not vacate the quarter. On the one hand, proceedings were initiated to recover the penal rent for the period, during which he was in unauthorized occupation of the quarter, and on the other hand, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, for that very act. W.P.No.4380 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner, assailing an order dated 14.2.2003, directing recovery of the arrears of rent of Rs.39,015/-, in monthly instalments, was dismissed by this court today, through a separate order. Through a final order dated 4.12.2004, the Commandant of CISF Unit, Durgapur, imposed the punishment of reduction of pay, by one stage, from Rs.4,900/- to 4,800/-, for a period of three years. It was further directed that the petitioner will not earn increments, during the period of reduction, and that the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The period, during which the petitioner was under suspension, was directed to be treated as not on duty, for all purposes. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The appeal was partly allowed, through order dated 24.1.2007, reducing the period of reduction of pay, from three years to one year. It was directed that the reduction of pay will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The petitioner assails the final order dated 4.12.2004, as modified by the first 1st respondent. Heard Sri B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only charge against the petitioner is that he did not vacate the quarter after 1.6.1997, even though he was transferred to various places. The petitioner submitted his explanation, narrating the circumstances under which he could not vacate the quarter. Several proceedings, in the form of imposition of penal rent, orders for recovery of the same, ensued, and the petitioner had also approached the Calcutta High Court, in relation to the same. It is no doubt true that the petitioner committed an act of misconduct, in not vacating the quarter, after expiry of the stipulated period. However, taking into account, the past conduct of the petitioner and the circumstances, under which he retained the quarter, the Appellate Authority itself took a lenient view and reduced the period of enforcement of reduction of pay, from three years to one year. Having regard to the fact that the penal rent is already recovered from the petitioner and that he has to maintain a family, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the punishment of reduction of pay from Rs.4,900/- to 4,800/- for a period of one year, is imposed, in such a way, as not to have any effect on future increments. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the reduction of pay, ordered against the petitioner, from Rs.4,900/- to Rs.4,800/-, shall remain in force for one year, and it shall not have any effect on the future increments of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 17th March 2008 PAN