BIR SINGH Vs. SENIOR COMMANDANT, CISF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CRPF) and posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. He was served with a charge-sheet in terms of Section 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, alleging misconduct in that he had allowed a person without any pass or authority to go through the gate manned by him. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and an inquiry instituted in which, apart from documentary evidence, statements of six witnesses were also recorded. The Inquiry Officer, however, concluded that the charge against the petitioner was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the said finding as according to it, the same was not based on a proper appreciation of the material assembled during the course of the inquiry. After giving to the petitioner an opportunity as to why he should not be held guilty of the charge framed against him, the Disciplinary Authority dissented from the report given by the Inquiry Officer, recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner and imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 4700/- to Rs. 4600/- for a period of one year with immediate effect.

(2.) Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of CISF, which failed and was dismissed vide order dated 18th September, 2006. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the Inspector General of CISF in a Revision which affirmed the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority and the DIG vide order dated 28th September, 2006, holding that the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved and that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was in no way disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by him. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as also the Revisional Authority have concurrently held the charges framed against the petitioner to have been proved. Mr. Sharma's contention that the finding is against the weight of evidence has not impressed us. So long as there is some evidence which if believed can sustain the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner, this court would not embark upon re-appraisal of the material to record a finding of its own. The authorities below were entitled to accept or discard the evidence available on record and draw their conclusion. Inasmuch as they have done so, they committed no illegality or irregularity to warrant interference by a writ court, which does not sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by a subordinate court or domestic tribunal.