By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is a Head Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (shortly called 'CISF') challenged the legality and validity of the order of punishment dated 26th April, 1989 contained in Annexure 1 and the orders contained in Annexure 2,3 and 4 affirming that order and also prayed for quashing these orders. 2. I have heard Mr. AK Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Put very shortly, the case of the petitioner is that while he was discharging his duties as a Head Constable at a place called Arna Burna Chowk at Patiala he was charged by his Commandant (Jeal Gora) for misconduct, indiscipline and negligence. The charge as framed runs as follows : "No.734500540 Head Constable B. Muknia was detailed in 'C' shift duty at Arna Barna Patiala from 2100 hrs to 0500 hrs on 12.4.89. At about 2030 hrs when shift was ready to move for duty, he instigated his section's personnel not go on duty at Arna Barna and brought down them from the vehicle. He refused to go on duty in 'C' shift at Arna Barna, and remained absent from his duty. He shouted and used filty language against Head Constable SN Ahmed (CHM). This act of No.734500540 Head Constable B. Muknia tantamounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and most unbecoming of a good member of Force." 4. On receipt of the above mentioned charge the petitioner submitted a reply in writing denying the charge. But even though the petitioner denied having committed any misconduct as alleged, the authority without making any sort of enquiry awarded the punishment of withholding his increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner to the higher authorities were also rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 5. The first point of criticism advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of punishment is bad in law inasmuch as the authority did not make any sort of enquiry as required by law and thus they not only denied any opportunity to the petitioner for his defence but also ignored the principles of natural justice. On hearing the submission of Mr. AK Bhowmik, Mr. On hearing the submission of Mr. AK Bhowmik, Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for he respondents has submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in Bhagat Ram's case reported in AIR 1983 SC 454 this petition may be disposed by quashing the order of punishment giving an opportunity to the authorities for having do have enquiry. 6. In the case of Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others reported in AIR 1983 SC 454 their Lordships held as follows : "It is well established that, in a disciplinary enquiry, die delinquent has a right to cross examine witnesses examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority and an opportunity to lead his own evidence and to present his side of the case. This is the minimum principle of natural justice which must inform a disciplinary proceeding. The provisions contained in the Central Service Rules do make adequate provisions for the same and there should be substantial compliance of them. The principle deducible from the provision contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 upon its true construction is that where the department is represented by a Presenting Officer, it would be the duty of the delinquent officer, more particularly where he is a Class IV Government servant whose educational equipment is such as would lead to an inference that he may not be aware of technical rules prescribed for holding inquiry ...... In fact justice and fair play demand that where in a disciplinary proceeding the department is represented by a Presenting Officer, it would be incumbent upon the disciplinary authority while making appointment of a Presenting Officer to appear on his behalf simultaneously to inform the delinquent of the fact of appointment and the right of the delinquent to take help of another Government servant before the commencement of inquiry ..." 7. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that no enquiry whatsoever was actually made against the petitioner giving him opportunity to examine any witness in support of his defence. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that no enquiry whatsoever was actually made against the petitioner giving him opportunity to examine any witness in support of his defence. At this stage it may therefore, be advantageous to quote Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short the CISF Rules) which reads : "Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquires) Act, 1950 (37 of 1950), no order imposing on a member of the Force any of the penalties specified in clause (a) to (b) of Rule 31 shall be passed except after an inquiry held as for as may be in the manner hereinafter provided." 8. It would be quite apparent from the above quoted provision that any of the penalties under clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 31 can be imposed only after enquiry. In this context, it is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be considered to be major and that the punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner does not came within the category of clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 31. It is true that the punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner does not fall within the purview of clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 31 of the CISF Rules. But Rule 31 does not say specifically as to whether punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect is penalty or not. Moreover, Rule 31 does not say that no enquiry is required in such a case. Here there is no scope of denial that no enquiry worth the name at all against the petitioner was made before imposing the penalty. It is however, true that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal over the finding of the disciplinary authority. But where the findings are utterly perverse the High Court can always interfere with the same. In this connection the decision rendered in the case of Union of India vs. HC Goel reported in AIR 1964 SC 364 at page 369 the Supreme Court observed as under: "It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the records that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In dealing with writ petitions filed by the public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311 (2) the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rest is not supported by any evidence at all." 9. Applying the above principles it can safely be said that the order imposing penalty on the petitioner was passed without the basis of any evidence whatsoever. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 the Supreme Court made the following observation : "Article 311 (2) makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before the employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The Article however cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded. The procedure to be followed in awarding other punishment is laid down in the service rules governing the employees. In the matter of all punishment both Government servants and other are governed by their service rules. Whenever, therefore, the service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded, and when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the Inquiry Officer's report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment." 10. From the above passage it appears that where a service rules contemplating an enquiry, the punishment if awarded without enquiry, must be construed to be bad in law. In the instant case, it would be quite apparent from the provisions laid down under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules that an enquiry is necessary and the charge so framed the delinquent has to be given to him together with a statement of the allegation on which they are based. But in the instant case nothing was followed. It was also alleged that respondent No.6 was not disciplinary authority and hence such an order of punishment must be said to be bad in law. 11. But in the instant case nothing was followed. It was also alleged that respondent No.6 was not disciplinary authority and hence such an order of punishment must be said to be bad in law. 11. In view of all the facts and infirmities pointed out above, I allow the petition quashing the order of punishment contained in Annexure 1,2,3 and 4. The increments which were withheld by the order of punishment must be given to the petitioner. It is, however, clarified that this order will not stand in the way of starting a de novo enquiry against the petitioner, if it is so considered by the authority. 12. With the above order and directions this writ petition is disposed of.