H.C. SIDDAGANGAIAH ASI/EXE NO. 754290119 S/O LATE CHIKKABERAIAH Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, KIOCL UNIT, KUDREMUKH - 577 142, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, THE GROUP COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, GROUP H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE charge against Appellant is that while he was on duty, a theft occurred in the warehouse at KIOCL, Kudremukh on the intervening night of 6th and 7th July, 2009. As a consequence of which copper cable worth Rs. 9,50,000/ - was stolen. A departmental enquiry was duly held and a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year was ordered; the reduction was ordered to have the effect of postponing future increments of pay. As already stated the enquiry officer submitted his report holding charges to be proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued the aforementioned punishment. Against the order, the Appellant preferred an Appeal which came to be rejected on 01.11.2010. Undeterred the Appellant preferred a Revision Petition to the Inspector General, CISF which also came to be rejected vide order dated 20.07.2011. Nevertheless the Appellant continued the litigation by filing W.P.42161/2011 in which the impugned order came to be passed. The learned Single Judge considered the punishment to be appropriate and in consonance with the misconduct that has been duly proved, thereby not warranting any interference. The matter came up for our consideration on 24.07.2012 when it was made known to counsel for the Appellant that keeping the circumstances of the case in view, the Appeal was likely to be dismissed summarily with punitive cost. Learned Counsel however prayed for an opportunity to obtain instructions. Yet another opportunity was granted on 30.07.2012. Before us it is now contended that the punishment that have been awarded to the Appellant is not a "Minor Punishment". This is obviously with a view to incorrectly construe the impugned order to hold that it was a minor punishment. A proper reading of the impugned order discloses that the view of the learned Single Judge was that the punishment was not so severe as to call for interference. Valuable time has been taken by the Appellant. We find that the Appeal is devoid of merit. It is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be paid to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund by deducting this amount in five installments from the Appellant's salary.