2025:JHHC:23447 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 4035 of 2017 ------- Jay Ram Singh, son of Sri Maharaj Singh, resident of Quarter No. ‘A’ Type 98, Sector-III, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India. 2. Director General of CISF, CISF Head Quarter, Block No. 13, GGO’s Complex, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. CGO Complex, New Delhi. 3. Inspector General of CISF, Eastern Sector, Patna, P.O. & P.S. Patna, District Patna (Bihar). 4. Deputy Inspector General, CISF, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 6. Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 7. Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 8. Gopal Bhagat, Inspector, CISF Unit, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Faiz Ur Rahman, Advocate For the Resp. : Ms. Leena Mukherjee, CGC ---- 07/ 13.08.2025 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the appellate order No. 3322 dated 25.07.2016 as well as the final order No. 1664 dated 24.12.2015, whereby the petitioner was imposed with punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from B.P. Rs.10,700 + G.P. Rs.2800 to B.P. Rs.10,300 + G.P. Rs.2800 in the time scale of pay band/ pay scale P.B.-I Rs.5200-20200 for a period of three years with immediate effect with further direction that petitioner will earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 2. Brief facts as per the pleadings are that while the petitioner was working under the CISF Unit, HEC, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the 6th respondent 2025:JHHC:23447 2 and a charge memorandum dated 25.11.2015 under Rule 37 of CISF Rules, 2001 was issued against him for the charges mentioned therein. The petitioner vide letter dated 07.12.2015, requested to supply certain documents which were given to him vide letter dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure-4). Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted in which petitioner was given due opportunity and order of punishment has been imposed regarding reduction of pay by one stage from B.P. Rs.10,700 + G.P. Rs.2800 to B.P. Rs.10,300 + G.P. Rs.2800 in the time scale of pay band/ pay scale P.B.-I Rs.5200- 20200 for a period of three years. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither principles of natural justice was followed nor the provisions contained in Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 has been taken care of while imposing the punishment, inasmuch as, the documents which the petitioner has demanded vide Annexure-3 were not supplied to him; as such, the impugned orders may be quashed and the case may be remitted back to the disciplinary authority to start a fresh enquiry, if so advised. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no error in the impugned orders and the principles of natural justice has duly been followed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that admittedly the petitioner vide letter dated 07.12.2015 has demanded few documents from the respondents. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.12.2015, the documents, as demanded, were provided to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply to the memorandum of charges on 13.12.2015 but this time he has not demanded any document; rather, the only prayer was made to drop the proceeding. 6. It further appears that in the 1st paragraph of the impugned order, there is a reference of letter dated 11.12.2015. 7. The petitioner during course of argument has also referred to Anenxure-7 and 7/A which are dated 20.01.2016 and 24.01.2016 respectively; however, the same have not been received by the 2025:JHHC:23447 3 respondents as there is no receiving initial but mere a chit of paper without any receiving by the Respondents. The petitioner also referred to several documents in order to justify that the punishment is bad in law as it violates Rule-37 of CISF Rules; however, those documents on which petitioner places reliance are also not bearing any initial of the Respondent showing proof of receipt. The petitioner has also referred Annexures - 8 & 9 and submits that by going through the said annexures, it appears that witness has given the statement before the disciplinary authority under coercion; however, the same are disputed question of fact and this Court cannot come to a conclusion with regard to veracity of those contentions. 8. Now, coming to the impugned orders, after going through the same, it appears that there is no perversity and each and every aspects of the matter have been considered. Even the Appellate Authority has considered the appeal of the petitioner and rejected the same by a well-reasoned order. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned orders and the instant writ application is hereby dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal