2025:JHHC:27737 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4583 of 2025 ---- Mukesh Kumar, S/o Sri Balmiki Singh, R/o- Chandi Nowan, P.O. & P.S.- Kashichak, District- Nawada, Bihar-805130 now presently working and posted as CISF Unit, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Shastri Park, P.O. + P.S. & District- New-Delhi-110053. … Petitioner -versus- 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs(MHA), P.O. & P.S. North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Director General, CISF Directorate, 13, CGO Complex, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. Inspector General, CISF East Sector HQRS, Post Office and Police Station- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. 4. D.I.G, CISF, BCCL, Koyala Bhawan, Post Office and Police station- Koyala Nagar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand, PIN-826001. 5. Commandant, CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad, Post Office and Police station- Koyala Nagar, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand, PIN-826001 ..… Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C. ---- 2/ 28.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- For issuance of a writ of or writ in the nature of Certiorari or for any other appropriate writ/order or direction for quashing/setting aside the final order issued vide Letter No. 718, dated 01.02.2018 (Annexure-2) by the CISF Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred as CISF) Dhanbad /Jharkhand unit by which the Petitioner has been inflicted punishment with immediate effect and his "Rs. 33,300/- pay Scale to down one stage Rs. 32,300/- for one year and after one year also will effected Life time to Monetary loss as well as quashing of the Appellate order issued vide Letter No. 1593 dated 08/03/2018 (Annexure-3) rejected by the CISF, DIG, BCCL, Dhanbad and Revisional order contained in Letter No. 7605 dated 05/06/2018 (Annexure-4) which was also rejected by the CISF, I.G., East Sector, Ranchi. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined CISF on 21.04.2002 as Constable General Duty. He was posted at several places during his service tenure. On 16.10.2017, the petitioner was served with a suspension order of 117 days under CISF Rule-33 of CISF Rules 2001 vide Letter No. 2669 from 2025:JHHC:27737 -: 2 :- the CISF Assistant Commandant CISF Unit BCCL-CCW(D) Area No. 10 (Dhanbad). Thereafter vide Letter No. 6629 dated 27.10.2017, he was served the Memo of Charge. The charge against the petitioner was that on 10.10.2017, despite seeing a thief, the petitioner did not make the necessary efforts to chase and catch him. The petitioner then filed his reply against the charge memo on 09.11.2017. However, the respondents, without considering the reply of the petitioner, passed punishment order vide Letter No. 718 dated 01.02.2018 and gave the punishment of reduction of one increment for one year with future effect and also pension for whole life to be calculated accordingly. The petitioner further filed departmental appeal but the same was rejected by Letter No. 1593 dated 08.03.2018 issued by DIG CISF BCCL Dhanbad. The petitioner’s revision application was also rejected by the Inspector General, CISF East Sector HQRS, Ranchi vide Letter No. 7605 dated 05.06.2018. Moreover, the representation dated 13.06.2018 filed before the D.G. CISF, Block No. 3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road for instant relief from the punishment was dismissed on 05.01.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of reduction of pay by one stage and the deprivation of property right is violative of the Article 300A of the Constitution. The counsel further submits that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved charge against the petitioner. The counsel contends that the order will cause a life time monetary loss to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the inability of the petitioner in preventing the theft shows gross negligence and indiscipline towards his duty. The counsel states that during the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer found the allegations levelled against the petitioner to be true on the basis of statements of the witnesses recorded and evidence presented. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, it transpires that the petitioner was in charge to safeguard the Government Property but he failed in performing his duties and could not prevent the miscreants from entering inside the Central Store and stealing items, which were in his area of responsibility. The evidences on record further corroborate the fact of the case. The petitioner’s failure shows his gross negligence and dereliction to duty and the same cannot be accepted or vouched for. 7. It is well settled that while dealing with the cases of departmental 2025:JHHC:27737 -: 3 :- proceeding, the scope of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and it cannot act as appellate authority. It is also well settled that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction should also not interfere with the punishment, unless it appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India versus P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, at paragraphs 12 and 13 thereof has broadly laid the guidelines for dealing with cases of departmental proceedings. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said judgment read as under: - 12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in 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; 2025:JHHC:27737 -: 4 :- (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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in an earlier judgment in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Rajendra Singh, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 while observing that the judicial review of the quantum of punishment is available with a very limited scope has held as under:- “19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.” 9. Considering the facts of this case, in the light of the aforesaid judgments, I find that the petitioner while on duty at Jeolgora Central Store, failed to protect the Government Property inasmuch as despite him being on duty with arms and ammunitions along with two other personnel, miscreants entered into his area of responsibility and succeeded to lift some brass washers from the central store. Further in the context of such proved charge, I also do not find the punishment awarded to be such so as to be shocking to the conscience of this Court. I find no merit in this writ petition calling for any interference with the punishment order, the appellate order or the revisional order passed by the departmental authorities. This writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02