Ananda Sen, J
1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revisional authority as contained in letter No.11015/East/LC/Rev-01/ 2022-
546, dated 31.01.2022; the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in letter No.V-14013/BSL/CISF/LEGAL/AKS/2021-6843-(E) dated
20.11.2021 as also the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as contained in letter No. V-15014/CISF/BSL/Admn.-II/A.K.Singh/Major/21-841
dated 25.08.2021 whereby and whereunder punishment of “reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.35,300/- in Level 4 of Pay Matrix to Rs.34,300/-
in Level 4 of Pay Matrix for a period of one year with immediate effect; and it was directed that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of
reduction and on expiry of the above period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay†was awarded to the
petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, i.e., lowering of his pay by one stage in pay matrix is
absolutely illegal. He submitted that petitioner had no other option, but to leave the Quarantine Centre during the Covid period because, it was
necessary for him to repair the phone as no one was there. He took all precautions and thereafter returned. He pleaded that the second charge
leveled against the petitioner cannot be said to be a misconduct as the petitioner had already been earlier punished for the same. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further pleaded that necessary documents were not handed over to the petitioner, thus, he could not defend his case properly. Petitioner
also claimed that the Enquiry Officer was bias and his prayer to change the Enquiry Officer was not adhered to.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submitted that in a Departmental Proceeding, petitioner was inflicted the punishment of
lowering of pay by one stage. He argued that the statutory appeal was considered and the same was rejected by a reasoned order and so was the
revision also. He contended that this Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise the facts. There
is no procedural illegality in the departmental enquiry. He further argued that the punishment is neither harsh nor disproportionate, therefore, no
interference is necessary.
4. Petitioner is a member of a Disciplined Force. He is in Central Industrial Security Force. He is a Constable. The petitioner was proceeded against
departmentally. There were two charges against the petitioner. The first charge is that he was found Covid Positive and he was immediately shifted to
the Executive Hostel in a separate room for isolation on 29.04.2021. On 01.05.2021 at about 10.30 when checking was being conducted, this petitioner
was found missing from his room. He had, in fact, left the isolation centre and was mixing with the civilians. After some time, he was seen entering
the Executive Hostel in a two wheeler, thus, he disobeyed the orders and acted irresponsibly being a Covid infected patient. The second charge was
that on earlier occasions he was already inflicted three minor punishments, but inspite of that he did not mend himself.
5. From the records I find that the Enquiry Officer, after a proper enquiry and giving full opportunity to the petitioner came to the conclusion that the
charge against the petitioner is proved. Petitioner was given an opportunity and thereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed by which the
pay scale of the petitioner was reduced by one stage. Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal. The grounds and submissions which were urged by
the petitioner were duly considered by the Appellate Authority and his appeal was dismissed. The Revisional Authority also considered the entire
defence of the petitioner and dismissed the revision application of the petitioner.
6. While going through the punishment order, appellate order and revisional order, I find that each and every point, which the petitioner raised, were
considered and was dealt by the authority. Even the documents were also dealt with and answered. The Revisional Authority held that all the
documents were handed over to the petitioner and rest of the documents, which the petitioner was asking for, had absolutely no relevance for the
purpose of this case. The allegation against the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Officer was also baseless, as held by the Revisional Authority. I
also find that the petitioner has unnecessarily alleged bias against the Enquiry Officer without there being any strong backing. The Enquiry Officer
found the allegation against the petitioner, that inspite of being Covid positive, he left the Covid Centre and mixed with the general public, to be proved.
Being a member of the Disciplinary Force, he had to maintain utmost discipline, which he failed to do.
7. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appellate authority. The scope of judicial review in
departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and
Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 37 thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court
cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry Officer. By referring to judgment in the case
of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao reported in 1963 AIR SC 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the
function of the High Court to review the findings and arrive at a different finding. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well
settled that the High Court can interfere where the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are
based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can also interfere. It has
also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: -
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
8. In view of the aforesaid settled principle, since the procedure has been followed and the fact finding authority has held that the charges leveled
against the petitioner are proved and since there are no overwhelming material to come to a different conclusion, I am not inclined to interfere with the
finding of fact that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct.
9. Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager & Disciplinary Authority versus S. Mohammed
Gaffar reported in (2002) 7 SCC 168 has held that unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or Appellate Authority is either
impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally interfere with the same. Paragraph 10 of the said
judgment reads as under: -
“10. The High Court seems to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is
concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or Appellate Authority is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of
the High Court, it should not normally interfere with the same or substitute its own opinion and either impose some other punishment or penalty or direct the
authority to impose a particular nature or category of punishment of its choice.â€
10. In this case, punishment, which was imposed is lowering down the pay of the petitioner by one stage. Though the second charge cannot be said to
be a misconduct, but the same can be taken into consideration for imposing punishment. I find that the petitioner was earlier punished for different
misconducts thrice. The same was considered for imposing the punishment in this case as it is not the first case of misconduct of the petitioner. The
punishment imposed is neither excessive nor harsh.
11. Considering what has been held above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.