APHC010252912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL Nos: 717. 718 & 725 of 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 717 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 03-12-2024 in WP.No.3069 of 2012, on file of the High Court. Between: 1. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam-530001 (Presently Sr. Commandant) 2. The Deputy Inspector General, G.I.S.F., (Ministry of Home Affairs), South Zone Headquarters, D-wing, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 3. The Inspector General, C.I.S.F., (Ministry of Home Affairs) Headquarters, D-wing, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. 4. The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Secretariat, New Delhi-1 Rep. by its Secretary. (A.P.) South Zone North Block, Central ...Petitioners AND SIBA CHARAN SETHI, CISF Mo.744340178, S/o Late K. 71 years, Occ.Sub Inspector (Executive) (Under Orders Sethi, aged about of Compulsory Retirement), R/o Janarabarimul (Via) Dawpur, District. Kendra Para, Pin.754210, (Orissa State). ...Respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in WP No. 3069 of 2012, dated 03- 12-2024 by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRIJ U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent: SRI T SURYA KARAN REDDY APHC010264212025 Si'H WRIT APPEAL NO: 718 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 03-12-2024 in WP.No.29037/2014 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Central Industrial Security Force, (Ministry of Home Affairs), South Zone Headquarters, Chennai, Represented by its Deputy inspector General. 2. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, (Ministry of Home Affairs), South Zone Headquarters, Chennai. 3. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioners AND Narayana, S/o Kondaiah, aged 42 years, CISF Constable, No.455 R/o Quarter Saligrampuram, Kailasapuram Post, Type-1, Visakhapatnam. Block-Ill ...Respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in WP.No. 29037 of 2014, dated 03-12-2024 by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent SESHADRI GOALLA APHC010228872025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 725 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 03-12-2024 in WP.No.10518 of 2012 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security, Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam-530035 (A.P.) 2. The Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F., (Ministry of Home Affairs), South Zone Headquarters, D-Wing, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090. 3. The Inspector General, C.I.S.F., (Ministry of Home Affairs) South Zone Headquarters, D-Wing, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. Chennai. 4. The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-1, Rep. by its Secretary. ...Petitioners AND G Srinivasulu, S/o G Subbanna, CISF, Constable No.921403445, O/o CISF Unit Visakhapatnam, Port Trust Visakhapatnam, R/o Type-1, Quarter No 1004, Block No 34, Saligramapuram, Visakhapatnam- 530 024 ...Respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be Pleased to suspend the operation the order dated 03-12-2024 passed in WP.No.10518 of 2012 pending writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K SITA RAM The Court made the following common Judgment: APHC010252912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 717/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 3069 of 2012, dated 03-12- 2024 declaring the same as illegal, contrary to law declared by Apex Court and pass Between: 1.THE COMMANDANT,, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS), VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM-530001 (A.P.) (PRESENTLY SR. COMMANDANT) 2.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,, C.I.S.F., (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS), SOUTH ZONE HEADQUARTERS, D-WING, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090. 3.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,, C.I.S.F., (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS) SOUTH ZONE HEADQUARTERS. D-WING, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090 4.THE UNION OF INDIA,, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-1 SECRETARY. NORTH REP. BY ITS ...APPELLANT(S) AND 2 1.SIBA CHARAN SETHI, CISF Mo.744340178, S/o Late K. Sethi, aged about 71 years, Occ.Sub Inspector (Executive) (Under Orders of Compulsory Retirement), R/o Janarabarimul (Via) Dawpur, District. Kendra Para, Pin.754210, (Orissa State). ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 111 days in filing the above W.A against WP No. 3069 of 2012, dated 03-12-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in VVP No. 3069 of 2012, dated 03-12-2024 by the learned Single Judge and pass WRIT APPEAL NO: 718/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above named Appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the Judgment passed in WP No.29037/2014 , dated 03-12-2024 passed by His Lordship for the following grounds among other Between: 1.CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS), SOUTH ZONE HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS), SOUTH ZONE HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI. 3.COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, UNIT VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT(S) 3 AND 1.NARAYANA, S/o Kondaiah, aged 42 years, CISF Constable, R/o Quarter No.455, Type-I, Block-Ill, Saligrampuram, Kailasapuram Post, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 126 days in filing the above W.A against WP 29037 of 2014, dated 03-12-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and pass s lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in WP No. 29037 .of 2014, dated 03-12- 2024 by the learned Single Judge and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent: 1 .T SURYA KARAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 725/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 10518 of 2012, dated 03-12-2024 declaring the same as illegal, contrary to law- declaring by Apex Court and pass such Between: 1.THE COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS), VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, VISAKHAPATNAM-530035 (A.P.) THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, C.I.S.F., (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS), SOUTH ZONE HEADQUARTERS, D-WING, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600090. 4 2.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,, C.I.S.F., (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS) SOUTH ZONE HEADQUARTERS, D-WING, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 090. CHENNAI. 3.THE UNION OF INDIA,, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-1, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.G SRINIVASULU, S/o G Subbanna CISF Constable No 921403445, O/o CISF Unit Visakhapatnam, Port Trust Visakhapatnam, R/o Type-1, Quarter No 1004, Block No 34, Saiipramapuram Visakhapatnam- 530 024 ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to condone the delay of 104 days in filing the above WA against WP No. 10518 of 2012, dated 03-12- 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and pass such lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be Pleased to suspend the operation the order dated 03-12-2024 passed ' in WP.No. 10518 of 2012 pending writ appeal and pass such Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent: 1.KSITARAM The Court made the following: 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARWIA WRIT APPEAL NOS.717. 718 & 725 OF 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) In all the writ appeals i.e., W.A.Nos.717, 718 and 725 of 2025, a common order, dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.3069 of 2012, 10518 of 2012 and 29037 of 2014, is under challenge. 2. Both the parties in these Appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petitions for convenience. 3. The case leading to the filing of the present writ appeals are as hereunder: (i) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3069 of 2012 was working as Sub- Inspector and the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.10518 of 2012 and 29037 of 2014 were working as Constables in the Central Industrial Security Force. (ii) A surprise pocket money check was conducted on the petitioners on 29.04.2010. At that time, the petitioners were on duty in ‘B’ shift at 21.05 hours at HSL Gate. In the said surprise check, no excess money was found in the pockets of any of the petitioner. However, a sum of Rs.1,270/- was recovered which was concealed underneath an old register kept on the slabs inside the gumpty of HSL Gate. As an unaccounted amount was recovered, the , respondent authorities placed the petitioners in W.P.No.3069 of 2012 and 10518 of 2012 were kept under suspension and charge memos were issued. 6 , The petitioner in W.P.No.29037 of 2014 also issued a charge memo. Admittedly, ail the charges framed against the petitioners are identical and they were required to explain the unaccounted amount of Rs.1,270/-. The petitioners submitted their explanations on 10.05.2010 denying the charges. (iii) An enquiry officer and a presenting officer were appointed to conduct the enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report wherein it is reported that the charge against the petitioner in W.P.No.29037 of 2014 was proved. In the report of the enquiry officer held that the charges against the other two petitioners were not proved. But, basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner in W.P.No.29037 of 2014 was imposed punishment of penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum stage of Rs.6,310/- in the pay band-1 of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2,000/- for a period of three years. The reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments vide final order, dated 17.08.2010. (iv) With regard to the petitioner in W.P.No.3069 of 2012, the penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum stage, of Rs. 13,370/- in the pay band-2 of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4,200/- for a period of three years with effect on future increments was- imposed. With regard to the petitioner in ' W.P.No. 10518 of 2012, the petitioner was imposed pehalty of reduction of pay to the minimum stage of Rs.7,770/- in the pay band-1 of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- for a period of three years. The reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments vide final order, dated 17.08.2010. 7 (v) Aggrieved by the imposing punishment orders, the petitioners preferred appeals and revisions before the Appellate and Revisional authorities which were subsequently rejected. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court. After detailed hearing and on careful perusal of the rpaterial available on record, the three writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge of this Court setting aside the orders impugned in the writ petitions by its common order. Aggrieved by the said common order in the writ petitions, the respondents filed the present writ appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is no procedural irregularity in passing the punishment orders by the original authority and rejected the appeals and revisions by the concerned authorities. The petitioners were accorded every opportunity to defend their cases. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the disciplinary authority has power to disagree with the enquiry officer report and can proceed with the trial by giving disagreement note with reasons. He further contends that the learned single Judge ought to have appreciated that no one has answered how the amount of Rs. 1,270/- has come to the underneath the ^ old register kept on the table in the Gumpty, where the personnel will be available round the clock duty and the register also frequently used during the duty hours for monitoring the vehicle movement, which gives serious threat to security and amounts to negligence of duty and the same shall be taken serious note by the superior officer. The learned counsel further contends that 8 . in catena of judgments, the Apex Court categorically held that in service matters, the disciplinary authority will be the better judge in imposing the punishment on the erring personnel and Courts can interfere only when there are procedural irregularities and when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellants sought to set aside the common orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 03.12.2024 by allowing the Writ Appeals. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners were working as Sub-Inspector and Constables respectively in Central Industrial Security Force and they were on duty in ‘B’ shift at HSL Gate. The enquiry officer who conducted enquiry against the petitioner in W.P.No.29037 of 2014 found that the charges against the petitioner are proved considering the statements of witnesses viz., (1) Ramesh Ram, Assistant Commandant; (2) Satyabir Singh, Assistant Commandant: (3) Subash Kumar, Inspector and (4) ASI-Wilson John. The enquiry officer who conducted inquiry against the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3069 of 2012 and 10518 of 2012 had recorded statements of the same officers and the statements of the officers also the same. Admittedly, none of the officers spoke anything adverse to the petitioner in W.P.No.29037 of 2014. The enquiry officer in his report categorically held that the charges are not proved against the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3069 of 2012 and 10518 of 2012. The enquiry officer concluded in his report that the petitioners cannot be held 9 accountable for the amount found in Gumpty as the amount of Rs.1,270/- was not recovered from the pockets of any of the petitioner. One more admitted fact to be noted is that the petitioners were working in ‘B’ shift. The presenting officer has not examined and recorded the evidence of the personnel monitoring the HSL gate in ‘A’ shift. It is also to be noted that the enquiry officer who conducted enquiry against the petitioners in W..P.Nos.3069 of 2012 and 10518 of 2012 held that charges were not proved against them. A different enquiry officer conducted enquiry against the petitioner in W.P.No.29037 of 2014 and held that the cha’rges against the petitioner therein were proved. A very interesting point to be noted here is that the charges against all the three petitioners are one and the same and all the witnesses examined by the enquiry officers are also one and the same and the statements of the officers examined as witnesses are also one and the same and none of them spoke anything adverse to any of the petitioner including the petitioner in W.P.No.29037 of 2014. But, the disciplinary authority deferring with the finding of the enquiry officers report imposed punishment against all the petitioners. 7. Considering the facts of the case and the proportionate of the punishment imposed against the petitioners, the learned single Judge came to an opinion that the respondents have resorted to impose punishment which is shockingly disproportionate to the charges. It is also to be considered that non-examination of the personnel who worked on ‘A’ shift duty at the HSL gate is fatal to the case of the respondents. Considering the fact that it is also 10 not the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners have a scope to commit some omission of duty in exchange for illegal gratification and in the absence of the said allegation,,the learned single Judge opined that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is purely on presumption and the punishment imposed against the petitioners would deserve to be set aside. The leaned single Judge also observed that the disciplinary authority has no other evidence or material for imposing any punishment on the erring officers and in the said circumstances, when the enquiry officer could not point out guilty of the suspension on the petitioners, there is no occasion for the disciplinary authority to pass the order of punishment. 8. On perusal of the material available on record, in fact, there is no material available on record to. point out the guilty of suspicion on the t petitioners. As such, the observation of the learned single Judge on this aspect is well reasoned. 9. As rfghtly contended by the leaned counsel for the appellants normally in service matters Courts can interfere only when there are procedural irregularities and when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. But, in the present case, as rightly held by the learned single Judge considering the material available on record that this Court can exercise writ jurisdiction when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed. Accordingly, it is held that the impugned punishment t orders issued against the writ petitioners have been issued irrational, illogical 11 and arbitrary in the light of the punishment imposed against them is shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed. 10. On consideration of the findings in the report of the enquiry officer which is self-explanatory and in view of the non-examination of the personnel who worked on ‘A’ shift duty at the HSL gate and in the absence of any other evidence or material to impose such severe punishment against the petitioners, in our considered view, the punishment imposed against the petitioners is shockingly disproportionate and it is unsustainable in the eye of law. In our considered view, there is no infirmity or illegality in the common order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court with reasons and as such this Court is not inclined to interfere into the same. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no valid grounds to interfere into the reasoned common order, dated 03.12.2024 passed by the leaned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.3069 of 2012, 10518 of 2012 and 29037 of 2014 and therefore the present writ appeals are liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Writ Appeal Nos.717 of 2025, 718 of 2025 and 725 of 2025 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pendinq, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Seshadri Goalla, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri K Sita Ram, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T Surya Karan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri J U M V Prasad, (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:08/09/2025 ANOh^ COMMON JUDGMENT WA Nos. 717, 718 & 725 OF 2025 o< u SFP aes a: m O Current Section ^ DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT APPEAL’S WITHOUT COSTS