IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1332 of 2025 ----- Pyarelal Singh Yadav, S/o Indradev Singh Yadav, R/o village-Ram Kanali, P.O. & P.S.-Katrasgarh, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair, Government of India, having its office at North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, P.O.-Rajpath Area, P.S.-South Avenue, District-Central Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair, Government of India, having its office at North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, P.O.-Rajpath Area, P.S.-South Avenue, District-Central Delhi. 3.The Director General of C.I.S.F., having its office at Block No.13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, P.O.-Lodhi Road, P.S.-Lodhi Colony, District-New Delhi. 4.The Inspector General, C.I.S.F., Eastern Sector Ranchi, having its office at Tiril, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5.The Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F. Unit BSL Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. 6.The Commandant, having its office at C.I.S.F. Unit BSL Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. 7.The Deputy Commandant, having its office at C.I.S.F. Unit CTPS Chandrapura, P.O. & P.S.-Chandrapura, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Ms. Niki Sinha, C.G.C. …...... 03 / 19.03.2025: This is a writ of certiorari filed by the petitioner. I have heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) For an issuance of an appropriate writ preferably in the nature of certiorari to set aside/ quash the final order of punishment dated 18.11.2023, contained in letter No.V-15014/Keausab/ CTPS/ Anu./ Chhoti-(13)/ 2023-8635. (Annexure- 1), passed by the Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit CTPS Chandrapura, whereby and whereunder the punishment of ‘REDUCTION OF PAY BY ONE STAGE FROM RS.42,800/- TO RS.41,600/- (IN PAY MATRIX LEVEL-5) FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT HE WILL EARN THE INCREMENT OF PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF REDUCTION AND ON EXPIRY OF SUCH PERIOD, THE REDUCTION WILL NOT HAVE THIS EFFECT OF POSTPONING HIS FUTURE INCREMENTS OF PAY, has been inflicted upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority without making an enquiry into the matter. (ii) For an issuance of an appropriate writ preferably in the nature of certiorari to set aside/ quash the letter No.V-15020/ Keausab/ BSL/ Prasha-2/ P.L.S.Y./ Appeal/ 2024/ 320 dated 17.01.2024, (Annexure-3) issued by the (Appellate Authority) Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit BSL Bokaro Steel City, whereby and where-under final order of punishment, contained in letter No.V-15014 Keausab/ CTPS/ Anu./ Chhoti- (13)/ 2023-8635 dated 18.11.2023 has been modified/ reduced to pay fine equivalent to 07 days’ pay. (iii)For an issuance of an appropriate wirt preferably in the nature of certiorari to set aside/ quash the letter No.V-14013/ CISF/ BSL/ Legal/ Revision (PLSY)- CTPS/ 2024-26890-€ dated 02.04.2024, (Annexure-5) issued by the (Revisional Authority) Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F. Unit BSL Bokaro Steel City, whereby and where-under an application of revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected being devoid of merit. (iv)For an issuance of an appropriate writ commanding and directing upon the respondents concerned to provide all substantial/ consequential benefits as per due seniority which got missed due to the initiation of departmental proceeding, for which petitioner is entitled to.” 3. From the aforesaid prayer, it is clear that he has challenged the final order passed against him in a disciplinary proceeding by which he has been punished and thereafter, the appellate order and revisional order. In a writ of certiorari, the impugned order, which is challenged speaks for itself. No affidavit can improve or supplement the impugned order. It’s the order itself which speaks for itself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., New Delhi, reported in [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851] : (SCC p. 417, para 8) and also in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 520 has held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain ground its validity must be judged by the reasons, so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons or any other contrary reasons in shape of an affidavit or otherwise. Since, I have to judge the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order is self-speaking, it is not necessary to call for counter affidavit from the respondents as the counter affidavit cannot develop the case of the respondents, than what is there in the impugned order, thus, I am not calling for the counter affidavit. -2- 4. In this case as mentioned above, the petitioner has challenged the final order of punishment dated 18.11.2023, contained in letter No.V-15014/Keausab/ CTPS/ Anu./ Chhoti-(13)/ 2023-8635. (Annexure-1), passed by the Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit CTPS Chandrapura. 5. The petitioner was a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). While he was posted at C.T.P.S. Chandrapura Unit. A memorandum of charge was issued against him on 04.11.2023. It is alleged that in the morning while he was on duty i.e. in unit line control room, on 11.10.2023 at 06:35 hours, when Ajay Kumar, Reserved Inspector went to the control room, he could smell alcohol which according to him, was coming from the mouth of this petitioner. He thus arrived at a conclusion that this petitioner was drunk, while he was on duty. Petitioner could not reply satisfactorily. Thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated in terms of CISF rule and the petitioner was proceeding against. The petitioner denied the charge and stated that on 19.09.2023 as he was sick and had some problems in his hand, he got himself treated in the hospital and he was given some medicines. He was taking medicines for his injured hand and stomach and was consuming the said medicines regularly. He denied that he had consumed alcohol. 6. Considering the reply, the respondents inflicted the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage in the pay scale for the period of one year with an order that once such period is over the reduction will have no effect on postponing his future increment. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal of the petitioner, modified the punishment and converted the same to that of fine equivalent to seven days salary. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision. 7. From the records, I find that only on the basis of the allegation -3- levelled against the petitioner, the respondents concluded that he was drunk and has consumed alcohol on duty. Admittedly, the petitioner was not medically tested nor any breath analyzer test was conducted. He was not taken to the hospital or before any expert. He was not examined by any persons nor there is any medical report of competent authority / doctor, which could remotely suggest that he was drunk. Solely on the basis of smelling capacity of the Reserve Inspector, the department concluded that he was drunk during his duty. 8. When there is an allegation on any Officer of force who in duty found in intoxicated state, the least which the employer can do is to get him tested medically by any Doctor or atleast by breath analyzer. There is no report whatsoever to conclude that he was in intoxicated state. Only on the basis of smell by a Superior Officer a person cannot be proceeded against presuming him to be drunk. In this case only by smelling the Reserve Inspector had concluded this petitioner is drunk. This was not the proper procedure to establish the charge of intoxication during duty hours. Thus, the entire procedure adopted by the respondents is perverse. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 10. The final order of punishment dated 18.11.2023 is set aside, consequently the appellate and the revisional order also is set aside. 11. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of fine, which has been deducted from the petitioner. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S. -4-