Page No.# 1/19 GAHC010112112020 2025:GAU-AS:10385 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2601/2020 NO. 055132021 PRADIP UPADHYAY S/O- SRI SANTA PRASAD UPADHYAY R/O- NATUN HOWLI P.O- NATUN HOWLI P.S- TAMULPUR DIST- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN- 781367 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF BLOCK NO.1 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF NORTH EASTERN SECTOR STONEY HEAVEN BISHOP COTTON ROAD SHILLONG Page No.# 2/19 MEGHALAYA- 793003 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF GUWAHATI GS ROAD AMERIGOG 9TH MILE GUWAHATI- 781023 5:THE COMMANDANT 10 BN CRPF HOWLI BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781316 6:THE COMMANDANT 53BN CRPF BARAMULLA(J AND K) C/O- 56 APO ------------ Advocate for : MR. S CHAUHAN Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS Page No.# 3/19 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 29.07.2025 Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has sought for the following relief(s): - “It is, therefore; prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to call for the records, call upon the respondents to show cause as to why i) Enquiry Report dated 20/08/2017, ii) the order of Commandant dated 31/08/2017, iii) the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Guwahati dated 20/03/2018, iv) the order of Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector, Shillong dated 18/07/2018 and modified order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the DIG (Admn), North Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong shall not be set aside and quashed and after showing cause, after hearing the parties, after perusal of records be pleased to set aside and quash:- 1) Enquiry Report dated 20/08/2017, ii) the order of Commandant dated 31/08/2017, iii) the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Guwahati dated 20/03/2018, iv) the order of Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector, Shillong dated 18/07/2018 and modified order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the DIG (Admn), North Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong and/or pass such other order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;” 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding are noticed as below: - As projected in the writ petition, basing on a complaint lodged by one Inspector (GD), Mithilesh Kumar, who was the Company Commander of the unit wherein the petitioner Page No.# 4/19 was posted, a preliminary enquiry, came to be ordered in the matter. The preliminary enquiry report, having demonstrated commission of misconduct by the petitioner herein, and therein, also involvement of other force members coming to the forefront, the Commandant 10thBn, CRPF, as the disciplinary authority, proceeded to issue a Memorandum dated 18.03.2017, proposing to hold a joint enquiry against the petitioner, herein, and 7(seven) other members of the force. One Article of Charge came to be framed against the petitioner herein, vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017. Although the said Memorandum of Charge had 4 Article of Charges, in relation to the petitioner herein, there was only one charge framed i.e. Article of Charge No. 3. The Article of Charge No. 3, pertains to an allegation leveled against the petitioner of having conspired and joined against in a mutiny against an Officer Commanding C/10 Bn, CRPF i.e., Ins.(GD) Mithilesh Kumar. After issuance of the said Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, the disciplinary authority proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer in the matter as well as a Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer, on entering into the enquiry, issued notices to the petitioner for appearing before him. Accordingly, on the appearance of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, a preliminary enquiry was held on 01.05.2017, wherein, the petitioner was explained the charge in a language understood by him and he had submitted that he had understood the charge so framed against him. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 20.08.2017. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, vide communication dated 31.08.2017. The petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry report and therein, denied the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, considered the materials coming on record in the enquiry report as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner herein and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the allegations leveled against him Page No.# 5/19 and that he deserved punishment. The charge leveled against the petitioner was held to be proved by holding that he had stated that he had taken wine and also wanted his medical examination to be conducted. It was further concluded that initially the petitioner had helped others in the mutiny and thereafter he had abused the Commanding Officer. The petitioner was held to have participated in the Mutiny and no defense was submitted by him in the matter. Further the disciplinary authorities concluded that the petitioner remained absent on 21.04.2017, without informing the authority and appeared again on 21.05.2017, which was projected to indicate indiscipline and accordingly it was held that he was liable to be punished. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, herein, penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 15.11.2017. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of penalty of removal from service imposed upon him preferred an appeal before the designated Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Office, CRPF, Guwahati, vide order dated 20.03.2018; on considering the appeal submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the same by holding that the appeal was bereft of any merit. In the said order of the Appellate Authority, it was provided that it is permissible for the petitioner to prefer a Revision petition in the matter within 30 days before the Inspector General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF. The petitioner, accordingly, on 17.04.2018, preferred an application praying for revision of the penalty imposed upon him, invoking the provisions of Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force, Rules, 1955 (In short, the Rules of 1955). The Revisioning Authority, upon considering the revision petition submitted by the petitioner along with the contemporaneous records, was pleased vide order dated 18.07.2018, to hold that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were duly proved in the enquiry and the petitioner did not have any right to remain in the force. The Revisioning Authority however, appreciating the length of service rendered by the petitioner, his socio-economic condition, number of dependents as well as the Page No.# 6/19 requirement of nurturing and upbringing of minor kids, held that the imposition of extreme penalty, like removal from service, on the delinquent to be severe, accordingly, taking a lenient view, the Revisioning Authority, in terms of the power conferred under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, proceeded to set aside the order dated 15.11.2017, issued by the Disciplinary Authority along with the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority. On interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Revisioning Authority modified the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to that of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 12 years. It was further provided that the petitioner, during the period of his reduction shall not earn increments of pay and that on the expiry of the period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. In terms of the order passed by the Revisioning Authority, the Commandant 53 Bn, CRPF, proceeded to reinstate the petitioner in the service of the Battalion of the force w.e.f. 09.08.2018. Further, the period w.e.f. the date of imposition of removal from service i.e. w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 08.08.2018, was directed to be treated as “period spent not on duty”. The office of the Inspector General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF, i.e. the Revisioning Authority of the petitioner, vide order dated 27.03.2019, partially modified/amended the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, vide the order dated 18.07.2018 and reduced the pay of the petitioner by 10th stages from Rs. 33,000/- to 25,500/- i.e., the minimum of the scale in level-4, for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 15.11.2017. It was further provided that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the currency of the period of reduction and on expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner being aggrieved has instituted the present proceedings. Page No.# 7/19 4. Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, has submitted that against the petitioner herein, only one Article of Charge came to be framed of having participated in a mutiny against the Officer Commanding. Mr. Chauhan, has submitted that a perusal of the evidences coming on record, including the depositions made by the witnesses would reveal that nothing adverse against the petitioner, was brought on record, with regard to the incident that had occasioned on 01.12.2016. He submits that the evidence against the petitioner is that on 01.12.2016, at the mess he had shouted of having taken wine and had required for his medical examination. However, he submits that no medical examination of the petitioner was carried out by the respondents. Mr. Chauhan has further submitted that the allegation, which was leveled against the petitioner, was of being involved in a mutiny along with others, against the Officer Commanding and, there was no further allegation leveled against the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that the allegation so leveled against the petitioner was not established in the enquiry. 5. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the enquiry report has submitted that the Enquiry Officer in the matter had not drawn any specific conclusion against the petitioner, herein. The only conclusion drawn was he was involved in the purported mutiny occasioning on 01.12.2016 against the Officer Commanding. Mr. Chauhan, thereafter by drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 15.11.2017, passed by the disciplinary authority has submitted that the disciplinary authority had proceeded to draw conclusions beyond the charge leveled against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017. By referring to the conclusions drawn with regard to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 15.11.2017, Mr. Chauhan, has submitted that there was no charge framed against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, to the effect that he had remained unauthorizedly absent and accordingly he submits that the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority, were clearly perverse to the allegation leveled against the Page No.# 8/19 petitioner and the materials coming on record in the enquiry coming against. 6. Mr. Chauhan, submits that the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority to impose upon the petitioner, the penalty of removal from service vide the order dated 15.11.2017, was based on conclusion so drawn in the said order against the petitioner. The said conclusions drawn being also drawn beyond the allegation levelled against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner cannot be sustained. Mr. Chauhan further submits that although in the appeal, the petitioner has raised all the above grounds; however, the appellate authority had rejected his appeal without proper appreciation of the materials coming on record against the petitioner, which had clearly not indicated the requirement of imposition of any punishment upon him. Mr. Chauhan submits that the petitioner having approached the Revisioning authority, the Revisioning authority, vide order dated 18.12.2018, while upholding the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, against the petitioner, had interfered with the penalty imposed by holding that the penalty of removal from service, was too severe and thereafter, had proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, a penalty of reduction to lower stage in a time scale of pay for a period of 12 years with cumulative effect. Mr. Chauhan, further submits that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, in addition to being disproportionate, is also perverse and would mandate an interference from this Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents after taking this Court through the materials coming on record in the enquiry, as well as the enquiry report, submitted by the enquiry officer, has submitted that the enquiry officer had drawn a conclusion against the petitioner herein, of having been involved in the mutiny. The said conclusion is submitted by Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC, to have been so drawn basing on the materials coming on record. It is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner coming on record in the enquiry, which also involved his absence without information from duty, the disciplinary authority had proceeded to draw conclusions thereon, and had considered Page No.# 9/19 the same for the purpose of imposition of penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force and his conduct not being in conformity with the conduct expected from a member from a disciplined force, the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner would not mandate any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 9. The Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner in the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, being relevant, is extracted herein below: - “ STATEMENTS OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO. 941180225 HC/GD PRATAP RAM, NO. 915134702 CT/GD NABA KALITA, NO.060062126 CT/GD RAJU KUMAR DEKA, 035134484 CT/GD JITU DAS, NO.055130963 CT/GD HIREN BORO. NO. 055131006 CT/GD VIJAY BASUMATARY, NO.065133056 CT/GD BALINDER DAS AND NO.055132021CT/BUG PRADEEP UPADHYAY OF C/10 BN, CRPF. ARTICLE-I That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 015134702 CT/GD NabaKalita of C/10 Bn, CRPF disobeyed lawful order of superior in which he was detailed to proceed Group Centre, CRPF Kathgodam but, he refused to perform said Govt. duty. Thus No. 015134702 CT/GD NabaKalita of C/IC Bn, CRPF committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955. ARTICLE-11 That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Nabs Kalita of C/10 Bn used abusive languages & threatened No. 041656587 INSP/GD Mithilesh Kumar, Officer Commanding C/10 Bn CRPF to kill him. Thus No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naha Kalita of C/10 Br. CRPF committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955. ARTICLE-III That on 01/12/2016, No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram, No. 015134702 CT/GD NabaKalita, No.060062126 CT/GD Raju Kumar Deka, No. 035134484 CT/GD Jitu Das, No.055130963 CT/GD Page No.# 10/19 HirenBoro, No. 055131006 CT/GD Vijay Basumatary, No. 065133056 CT/GD Balinder Das and No. 055132021CT/BUG PradeepUpadhyay OF C/10 BN, CRPF Caused, inspired and joined in a mutiny against Officer Commanding C/10 Br, CRPF. Thus they committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955. ARTICLE-IV That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD NabaKalita of C/10 Bn assaulted No. 903053712 ASI/GD Md. Akman Ali, and No. 943331693 HC/GD BipinKumar(duty NCO) and threatened to kill them by putting their service rifle at their chest. Thus No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD NabaKalita of C/10 Bn, CRPF be committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act- 1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955.” 10. A perusal of the charges so framed in the Memorandum of Charge, would go to reveal that against the petitioner, herein, only Article of Charge No. III was so framed. 11. A perusal of the Article of Charge No. III, would go reveal that the petitioner, herein, had conspired and joined in a mutiny against Officer Commanding of the unit, on 01.12.2016, along with said other members of the force. It is to be noted that in addition to the charge of having participated in the mutiny, there is no further charge framed against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017. 12. Given the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner and the involvement therein of others, a joint enquiry was contemplated under the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, against 8 persons. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant 10thBattalion, CRPF, vide order dated 12.04.2017; directed for a joint departmental enquiry against the petitioner and 7 others and appointed an Enquiry Officer for the purpose. Further, a Presenting Officer was also appointed for the purpose. The Enquiry Officer held a preliminary enquiry on 01.05.2017, and the petitioner on being explained the charge, he had contended to have understood the same. Page No.# 11/19 13. A perusal of the evidences brought on record by the departmental witnesses in the enquiry, would go to reveal that Inspector (GD) Mithilesh Kumar, during his deposition, had deposed that the petitioner, herein, had shouted that he had also taken wine and required a medical examination to be done upon him. The depositions of the other departmental witnesses, brings on record the participation of the petitioner, along with others, on 01.12.2016, in a chaos that was created against the officer commanding. A perusal of the depositions of the departmental witnesses does not bring on record any other allegation to have been found established against the petitioner, herein, other than so levelled against him under Article of Charge No.III, vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017. The Enquiry Officer in its report, with regard to Article of Charge No.III, had not drawn any specific conclusion against the petitioner, herein. The only thing that is emanating from the enquiry report, against petitioner, is that he along with others had sat on a strike and had raised a hue and cry. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of the materials coming on record in the enquiry, the enquiry report and the stand of the petitioner, herein, proceeded vide order dated 15.11.2017, in respect of the petitioner, herein, to draw the following conclusion. “viii. Indiscipline committed by CT/GD Pradeep Upadhyay On 01/12/2016, HC/GD Pratap Ram and CT/GD Naba Kalita instigated other personnel to raise hue and cry. CT/GD Naba Kalita ordered for medical test and he refused to go for medical test by saying that you do whatever you like and he also said he reformed other commander including Bicky Sahab. In the meantime, CT/GD Pradeep Upadhyay told that he has also taken wine so conduct my medical test too. Initially he helped in mutiny. Thereafter, he abused CO loudly and participated in mutiny. He has not submitted his defence. Moreover, CT/GD Pradeep Upadhyay remained absent on 21/04/2017 without informing authority and appeared on 21/05/2017. This indicates indiscipline which provide for punishment. Thus CT/GD Pradeep Upadhayay being a personnel of discipline service committed indiscipline. However, during his 12 years of service, he has no other punishment. His offence is grievlous and CT/GD Pradeep Upadhyay deserves punishment.” Basing on the conclusions, so drawn the disciplinary authority vide the same order proceeded to impose, the following penalty upon the petitioner : Page No.# 12/19 “Force No. 055132021 CT/GD Pradeep Upadhyay removed from service from the office order dated 15/11/2017 and removed from the service of battalion”. 14. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted an appeal in the matter, however, the Appellate Authority i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Office, CRPF Guwahati, vide order dated 20.03.2018, on consideration of the materials placed before him, proceeded to reject the said appeal and thereby upheld the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted a Revision Petition before the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, North-Eastern Sector, invoking the provisions of Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The Revisioning Authority vide order dated 18.07.2018, with regard to the allegations leveled against the petitioner and the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority thereon, concluded that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were proved in the enquiry and the petitioner, on account of the act of indiscipline and misconduct committed by him had lost his right to remain in the force. 15. The Revisioning Authority, however, considering the mitigating circumstances i.e., the unblemished length of service of 12 years rendered by the petitioner in the force, his socio-economic condition, his dependent family members, need for nurturing and upbringing of minor kids, proceeded to take a lenient view in the matter and held that imposition of the extreme penalty like removal from service on the petitioner, to be too severe. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority was interfered with and a modified penalty, to the following effect, came to be imposed upon him. : - “REDUCTION TO A LOWER STAGE IN THE TIME SCALE OF PAY FOR APERIOD OF TWELVE YEARS. HE WILL NOT EARN INCREMENTS OF PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF REDUCTION AND THAT ON THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD; THE REDUCTION WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF POSTPONING HIS FUTURE INCREMENTS OF PAY.” 16. The modified penalty now imposed upon the petitioner requiring his reinstatement in his service, the petitioner was posted to 53rd Battalion of the CRPF, however, the Page No.# 13/19 Revisioning Authority in the said order dated 18.07.2018, proceeded to hold that the period of service of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his removal from service i.e., w.e.f. 15.11.2017, till the date of immediately preceding the date of his reporting to the unit he is posted to, would be treated as ‘period not spent on duty’, however, the intervening period was condoned for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits. 17. With regard to the manner in which the pay and allowances of the petitioner is to be regulated w.e.f. 16.11.2017 to the date of his reinstatement, the Revisioning Authority granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner to pass appropriate orders in the matter. The said order of penalty was further modified by the office of the Inspector General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF, vide order dated 27.03.2019 and the penalty now imposed upon the petitioner was of reduction of pay by 10 stages from Rs. 33,000/- to 25500/- in the pay matrix level-4, for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 15.11.2017. It was further held that the petitioner will not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and that, on expiry of the period; the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 18. It is a settled position of law that normally in exercise of power of judicial review, a writ Court will not substitute its own judgment or decision for the judgment or decision of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and/or the Revisioning Authority; unless it is found that the conclusion that the conclusions so drawn has shocked the concise of the Court, or the punishment is such that no reasonable man would impose upon a delinquent or, the decision is so absurd that the decision maker, at the time of making the decision, must have taken leave of his senses. 19. This Court, while exercising its power of judicial review in respect of the conclusions arrived at in a disciplinary proceeding, does not sit as an Appellate Court over the findings of the disciplinary authority and this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on its own, basing on the Page No.# 14/19 evidences brought on record unless, it is found that the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority in the matter is perverse to the materials available on record. 20. In the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Appellate Authority is also vested with co-extensive power to re- appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. The relevant conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this connection, being relevant is extracted herein below: - “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding Page No.# 15/19 be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion. upon consideration evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. 18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. 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.” 21. Having noticed the position of law with regard to the power of this Court, in relation to exercise of its powers of judicial review of a disciplinary proceeding, this Court would now examine the issue arising in the present proceeding. 22. On a perusal of the Article of Charge No.III, framed against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, it is seen that the allegation leveled against Page No.# 16/19 the petitioner therein, is of having participated in a purported mutiny against the Officer Commanding of the Battallion along with 7 others. In the enquiry, the said aspect of the matter with regard to participation of the petitioner in strike and raising hue and cry against the Officer commanding and demanding the presence of the Commandant of the Battallion at the site has been established . The enquiry report also establishes the participation of the petitioner in the strike and of raising hue and cry. However, what is relevant to be noted is the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.11.2017, against the petitioner. The conclusions drawn against the petitioner while affirming his role in the strike held on 01.12.2016, and of raising hue and cry, therein, the further conclusion drawn is to the effect that the petitioner remained absent on 21.04.2017, without intimation to the authority and had appeared on 21.05.2017. The conclusion drawn of the petitioner having remained unauthorizedly absent, is not borne out from the materials coming on record in the enquiry. Further, in the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, there was no charge framed against the petitioner of having remained unauthorisedly absent. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority with regard to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner is clearly perverse. The further conclusion that the petitioner had also on 01.12.2016, contended he had taken wine and required a medical test to be carried upon him, is inconsequential, inasmuch as, the said was not in course of the strike that had taken place in the matter and no medical examination of the petitioner was carried out. The said conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 15.11.2017 in the considered view of this Court in so far as it relates to allegation other than the one pertaining to the strike held on 01.12.2016, are clearly perverse and could not have been so drawn against the petitioner without framing a definite charge in this connection in the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017. 23. In view of the above matter, this Court is of the considered view that the penalty of removal as imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide the order dated Page No.# 17/19 15.11.2017, being also based on the ground that he had remained unauthorizedly absent would mandate an interference from this Court. 24. The conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority, with regard to the participation of the petitioner along with the other personnel of the Unit, in a chaos that had occasioned on 01.12.2016 and of raising hue and cry against the Officer Commanding, would not require an interference; however, the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority with regard to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, no charge thereon was framed against the petitioner herein. 25. The Revisioning Authority, having only upheld the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority, including the conclusion that the petitioner, herein, having remained unauthorizedly absent, the said part of the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority being perverse, the modified penalty imposed upon the petitioner, herein, by the Revisioning Authority would also mandate interference. 26. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above, the order dated 18.07.2018 along with the modified order dated 27.03.2019, passed by the Revisioning Authority and the order dated 15.11.2017, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, in connection with the petitioner herein, stands set aside. 27. Having interfered with the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority as well as the Revisioning Authority, this Court would now consider the penalty that would be called upon to be imposed upon the petitioner, herein. It is seen that similar allegations were leveled against Constable (GD) Jitu Das, Constable Vijay Basumatary and Constable (GD) Balindra Das, who were also charged under Article of Charge No. III, vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, of having participated in the mutiny. The said 3(three) members of the force, who were also proceeded against, along with the petitioner in the joint departmental proceeding, initiated vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, were imposed with the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time Page No.# 18/19 scale of pay for 5(five) years with cumulative effect . This Court basing on the materials coming on record finds that the allegation leveled against the petitioner, herein, were only established in the enquiry to the extend of having participated in the strike, that has occasioned on 01.12.2016, and nothing further was established against the petitioner. Further, in addition to the allegation leveled against the petitioner of being involved in the strike that had taken place on 01.12.2016 vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, no further allegation was leveled against the petitioner, herein. In that view of the matter maintaining parity with the penalty imposed upon the similar delinquents who were also involved in the departmental proceedings instituted vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner would also be now mandated to be imposed with a similar penalty i.e. the penalty as imposed upon the said Constable (GD) Jitu Das, Vijay Basumatary, Constable (GD) Balinder Das. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the following penalty, be imposed upon the petitioner, which would also be proportionate to the allegation leveled against the petitioner; “Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for 5 years.” At this stage it is to be noted that although Constable (GD) Jitu Das, Constable Vijay Basumatary, Constable (GD) Balindra Das, were imposed with a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for 5(five) years, with cumulative effect, this Court on considering the fact that the provisions of the CRPF Act and the Rules framed there under, do not mandate imposition of a penalty of Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for 5(five) years, with cumulative effect, this Court while prescribing the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner, had so required the same to be so imposed without cumulative effect. 28. The petitioner having not been found blameworthy by this Court, the petitioner will not be entitled any pay and allowances for the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 , i.e. the date when he was removed from his service, till 09.08.2018, when he was reinstated into Page No.# 19/19 service. However, the respondent authorities shall notionally compute the pay and allowances of the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 till 08.08.2018, and thereafter fix the pay of the petitioner as of 09.08.2018, accordingly, and release to the petitioner his due arrears of pay and allowances, along with the increment due to him. Thereafter, the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be so released to him by accounting for the increments of pay required to be authorized to him. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner shall now pass the consequential orders in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, along with the release to the petitioner of his arrear pay and allowances. 29. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant