Judgment Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to quash the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 29.11.2002 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition as well as the appellate order dated 29.04.2003 contained in Annexure-10 whereby, after departmental proceeding, the petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector in C.I.S.F., has been given punishment of reduction in pay scale by one stage i.e. from the scale of Rs.6,025 to 5,850 in the pay scale of Rs.5,500 – 175 – 9,000 for a period of four years. It was further directed that the petitioner would not earn any increment during the said period. 3. The charge against the petitioner was that on 27.05.2002, he was detained in ‘H’ Shift for performing duty at vehicle entry post for making entry of vehicles coming and going out through Duggal Gate. Constable Umesh Kumar was also deployed for performing duty at that post. Four vehicles of M/s. Dey Metal Company Ltd. went out through Duggal Gate without entering in computer but making entry in the vehicles movement register. The petitioner issued permission slip without proper checking. 4. After a proper departmental inquiry, the petitioner was awarded punishment as aforementioned and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the disciplinary authority was also dismissed. 5. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable and from that post, he rose to the post of Sub-Inspector because of his past service record and, therefore, punishment awarded of reduction in pay scale is harsh and disproportionate to the charge. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that this is not the first time that the petitioner has been awarded punishment but on earlier occasions also he has been awarded eight punishment apart from the present one. It is also stated that it is a case of gross misconduct, carelessness, negligence in discharging duties by the petitioner who did not follow the rules laid down for entry of trucks. As per the rule, the details of outgoing trucks were supposed to be entered in the computer register but the petitioner, without making proper entry, allowed the trucks to move out of the gate which was a serious misconduct on his part. 7. As per the rule, the details of outgoing trucks were supposed to be entered in the computer register but the petitioner, without making proper entry, allowed the trucks to move out of the gate which was a serious misconduct on his part. 7. After going through the impugned inquiry, report as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority, I find that on appreciation of evidence on record, findings on fact has been arrived at by the authorities concerned holding the petitioner guilty for the charges leveled against him. 8.In view of the nature of charge which has been established against the petitioner, I am of the view that the authority concerned have taken a lenient view in awarding punishment in reduction of salary by one stage. Reduction of salary by one stage to be effective for four years, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. No case has been made out for any interference by this Court. 9.Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.