Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010126212023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3410/2023 ANANTA NATH S/O- LATE DINA NATH, R/O- CISF COMPLEX- BX03, P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786602. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, NEW DELHI. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CISF HEADQUARTER 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE HEADQUARTER GUWAHATI KENDRIYA BHANDER A.G. COLONY BEHARBARI LALMATI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE Page No.# 2/4 HEADQUARTER GUWAHATI KENDRIYA BHANDER A.G. COLONY BEHARBARI LALMATI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 5:THE SENIOR COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT OIL DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786602. 6:THE SECTION COMMANDER INDUSTRIAL SECTOR CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT OIL DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786602 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, MR. M R SODIAL,H. BHARALI,MR S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. U K GOSWAMI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 25-02-2025 Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC appearing for the respondent. The writ petitioner herein is serving as a Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and is presently posted at the Bongaigaon OIL Refinery. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 17-05-2023 by means of which “Fine equivalent of 07 (Seven) days pay” has been imposed upon him by the Assistant Commandant/ Ind. Sector, CISF Unit Page No.# 3/4 OIL Duliajan, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. The basic allegation brought against the petitioner, as apparent from the article of charge, is of committing misconduct of disobedience of lawful order of the superior authority. Although the petitioner had denied the charge brought against him, yet, after a detail enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority, charge brought against the petitioner was found to have been established. Accordingly, final order dated 17-05-2023 was issued imposing the aforementioned penalty upon the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of penalty primarily on the ground that the same is too harsh. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have filed counter affidavit justifying the impugned decision. It is also the stand of the respondents that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is just and reasonable. It is not the case of the petitioner that the enquiry proceeding was conducted in violation of the procedural requirement or that he was not given proper opportunity to defend his interest. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has also not filed rejoinder affidavit countering the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to accept the correctness of the facts projected in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. If that be so, it would not be possible for this Court to accept the argument of the petitioner’s counsel that the penalty imposed upon his client is too harsh. It is to be noted herein that it is trite law that the Court can interfere with an order of penalty if the same is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged against the delinquent. However, in the present case, the materials are wholly Page No.# 4/4 insufficient to draw such a conclusion. On the contrary, this Court finds that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not only in accordance with the prescribed procedural norms but the same is also reasonable when viewed in the light of the allegation brought against the writ petitioner. For the reasons noted hereinabove this Court is of the opinion that there is no justifiable ground for this Court to interfere with the order of penalty imposed upon the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant