1 APHC010175202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 10068/2018 Between: Bonnada Jagan Mohan Rao, ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARATH KUMAR D Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for entire records connected to Order No.V- 15014/L&R/SS/Rev/JMR/2011-270, dated 26.07.2012. passed by the 3rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s Revision Petition filed against the Order No.V-11014/66/JMRB/Disc/SZ/9323, dated 28.11.2011 in Appeal, passed by the 4th respondent and in imposing deduction of increment by two stages for a period of one year, examine the same, set such orders aside after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, vitiated by non-consideration of material on 2 record and non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in it on proper lines and to pass such other order or orders……” 2. Heard Sri D.Sarath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Sri Krishna Yesaswi, learned counsel, representing Sri Pasala Ponna Roa, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned authority passed revision order without appreciating the material on record, except confirming the order passed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a Constable as a member of Armed Force in Central Industrial Security Force. He was suspended by the orders of respondent No.5, dated 10.07.2011 on the allegation that he was negligent in discharging his duty. The authorities conducted enquiry and found guilt for the charges framed against him. The petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No.4. In the final order dated 05.10.2011, he was sentenced with a punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pension and Gratuity with immediate effect. Learned counsel would further submit that aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent No.5, he preferred appeal before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 modified the final order to the effect that imposing reduction of increments by two stages for a period of one year. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the respondent No.3. It was rejected by confirming the order passed by the appellate authority, against which, the present writ petition is filed. 3 Learned counsel would further submit that the punishment which was awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the allegations made against him. The Department failed to follow the procedure. The punishment which is awarded to the petitioner is equivalent as punishment in the case of illegal gratification. The respondent authorities by ignoring the other officials, imposed the penalty against the petitioner only. As per the Standing Orders, the petitioner being a Constable and in the supervision of his higher-ups i.e. Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, he was deployed at the gate to check the gate passes. Learned counsel would further submit that no charges were made against the other officials. There is apparent irregularity on the face of imposition of punishment against the petitioner since the orders passed by the respondent No.3 and 4 would show non-application of mind to the admitted facts of the case. The impugned orders are vitiated by non- consideration of material on record. 4. Per contra, learned Deputy Solicitor General would submit that the article of charge framed against the petitioner is serious in nature. The charge framed against the petitioner is clearly proved. Rightly he was imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pension and gratuity. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal. The appellate authority on humanitarian grounds, considering his age, treating it as a first mistake, considered the case of the petitioner and modified the punishment as “reduction of pay by two stages for a period of one year with effect from 4 05.10.2011 with further direction that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increment and on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay”. Learned Deputy Solicitor General would further submit that it is not the case that the respondent authorities have not followed the procedure established by law for conducting the enquiry or imposing punishment. Learned Deputy Solicitor General would further submit that it is a matter of Certiorari. The interference of this Court in the present case is not warranted, since it is a case of disproportionate punishment to the wrong committed by the individual. The petitioner is expected to discharge from important functions relating to the security of an institution. The authorities lost confidence on him, because of his negligence, 55 persons entered the premises without any check at the gate. Learned Deputy Solicitor General would further submit that there are no grounds for exercising the jurisdiction under Certiorari. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, the point that would emerge for determination are: 1. Whether the punishment which is awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the wrong committed by him? 2. Whether the respondent authorities have not followed the procedure as per the rules while conducting enquiry or imposing punishment against the petitioner? 5 6. Points: The record shows the following charge framed against the petitioner, which reads as under: “That while No.014503197 Constable/GD J M Rao, B (CIW) of CISF Unit VSP Vizag was detailed in “Day’ shift for surveillance duty at New P.P. Gate from 0600 hrs to 1800 hrs on 09.07.2011 and present at New P.P. Gate Vehicle in Gate, a group of 55 labourers (45 male & 10 female) were allowed inside the plant at about 1025 hrs on 09.07.2011, through Vehicle In Gate of New P.P. Gate without any valid Gate pass or permission of the competent authority. Constable/GD J M Rao B of CIW also did not come forward to render any assistance to Sector Commander when the 55 labourers who had been given unauthorized entry were grouped together inside the gate by the Sector Commander/Sec-III with the help of his office security aide and driver. The above act on the part of No.014503197 Constable/GD J M Rao. B amounts to dereliction of duty, connivance and violation of instructions being a member of an Armed Force of the Union”. 7. After due enquiry by giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, the learned authority found him guilty, accordingly he was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement with retirement benefits and gratuity, against which, he preferred appeal. The appellate authority considered his case treating it as a first mistake and also taking into consideration his age, modified the punishment in the following lines: “…..Accordingly, the penalty of “Compulsory Retirement from service” awarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority vide Final Order dated 05.10.2011 is hereby modified to the extent “Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of one year with effect from 05.10.2011 with further direction that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increment and on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay”. The appellant is hereby directed to report back to CISF Unit VPT Visakhapatnam on reinstatement within 15 days of receipt of this Order failing which it will be presumed that he is not interested to rejoining to 6 service and this order will automatically be treated as cancelled without giving him any further notice or time extension. In that event, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority will stand good.” 8. As rightly put by learned Deputy Solicitor General, the punishment which is imposed against the petitioner is not disproportionate to the wrong committed to him. He is expected to maintain discipline in attending his work at the cost of the lives of the people and also the security of the institution. He was entrusted with an important work to check the people to enter the premises with permission. In that view, the punishment imposed to the reduction of pay by two stages for a period of one year with effect from 05.10.2011 and further directed that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increment, resulting which, the petitioner would get his annual pay after the period of one year, thereafter his annual increment which may fell due between the period from 05.10.2011 to 05.10.2012 will be granted next month i.e. November, 2012. In that view, the punishment further speaks that after expiry of the period, the reduction will be effect of postponing his future installments of pay. The petitioner would get his annual increments irrespective of his increment due would get postponed to individual only. 9. It is relevant to extract Rule 34 (i) of the CISF Rules, 2001, which reads as under: “dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government;” 7 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this can never be disproportionate punishment to the wrong committed by the individual. In that view, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.03.2025 ARR 8 317 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 10068/2018 Dt.11.03.2025 ARR