Judgment : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Sub Inspector/Clerk in the services of Central Industrial Security Force (in short, 'CISF'), was issued with a charge memorandum, dated 19.07.2010, by the fourth respondent under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001, for the following charges:- "Gross Misconduct, indiscipline and misuse of official position in that No.773010046 Inspector (Min) A.E.Rajan, in-charge, Document Section of CISF Group Hqrs., Hyderabad, had taken copies of the following documents unauthorizedly, without any intimation or permission of the competent authority, and used the same for furtherance of his personal interests by producing them before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in connection with Writ Petition No.12196/2010 filed by him:- a. Final order bearing No. V-15014/CISF/Min-02/ VPS-GHH/Adm.4/2010/974 dated 31.03.2010 marked to Personal File in respect of No.024490333 Const. V.P.Singh, formerly of this Group HQrs. b. Removed page of Service Book regarding entry of casualties published in r/o No.764501193 HC (GD) C J Vokappa formerly of this Group HQrs containing attestation of the competent authority dt. 28/01/10 and was kept in minor D.E. case file." 2. The petitioner, in response to the said charge memorandum, has submitted his representation dated 19.07.2010, stating among other things that in accordance with the judgment rendered in W.A.No.1179 of 2007 pronounced on 03.01.2008, the production of official documents relating to service matter before this Court cannot be questioned and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him cannot be sustained. 3. However, the Disciplinary Authority, has found that the petitioner, without giving any prior intimation or taking permission from the competent authority, had taken copies of those official documents and produced before the Court and therefore, imposed the punishment of "withholding of the next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect", vide order dated 20.07.2010. 4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, has challenged the said order of punishment by filing W.P.No.19360 of 2010 and it was disposed of on 18.01.2011 granting liberty to the petitioner to invoke the appeal remedy before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, viz., the third respondent and it was also rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 12.04.2011 and the revision petition filed by him before the second respondent was also dismissed on 29.06.2011 and aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, viz., the third respondent and it was also rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 12.04.2011 and the revision petition filed by him before the second respondent was also dismissed on 29.06.2011 and aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. Mr.Mohammed Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invited the attention of this Court to the Articles of Charge and would submit that it is not the case of the petitioner that after taking copies, he has misused or fabricated them to suit his advantage and in order to substantiate his case only, he has relied upon those documents and even otherwise, once notice is issued in a Writ Petition, the authorities are bound to produce the relevant documents to substantiate their case and hence, the act done by the petitioner cannot be termed as misconduct and therefore, the punishment is to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 03.01.2008, made in W.A.Nos.1179 of 2007 and W.P.Nos.43483 of 2002, 11176 and 8038 of 2007 in support of his contention. 6. Per contra, Mr.G.Arul Murugan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents has invited the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and would submit that the petitioner, without obtaining prior permission, clandestinely removed part of the records from the Service Records and used for his case and it clearly amounts to misconduct and taking into consideration the said fact, the Disciplinary Authority has shown leniency and imposed minor penalty of postponement of the next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have also confirmed the same and hence, prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the above cited judgment, in paragraph No.13, has considered similar issue, which reads as follows:- "13. As seen from the materials placed on record, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court on several occasions for getting his relief. We are of the considered view that production of copies of documents before this Court in connection with proceedings initiated under Article 226 cannot be questioned and disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained in this regard. As seen from the materials placed on record, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court on several occasions for getting his relief. We are of the considered view that production of copies of documents before this Court in connection with proceedings initiated under Article 226 cannot be questioned and disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained in this regard. We are of the considered view that the order impugned in W.P.No.8038 of 2007 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs." 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not even the case of the Department that the documents relied on by the petitioner in support of his writ petition have been fabricated. It is also to be pointed out that even as per the version of the Department, it is not a privileged document. It is also not the case of the respondents that the documents have been covered by the provisions of 'Official Secrets Act' and the practice adopted is, once notice is ordered by this Court, the respondents are bound to produce the records pertaining to the impugned order, which will be the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition and even otherwise; they would have produced the documents in support of their case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the reliance placed by the petitioner in respect of the documents, cannot be termed as misconduct and in such a view of the matter, the order of imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority require interference. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 20.07.2010, passed by the fourth respondent/Disciplinary Authority, the order dated 12.04.2011, passed by the third respondent/Appellate Authority and the order, dated 29.06.2011, passed by the second respondent/Revisional Authority are set aside and as a consequence of this order, the respondents are directed to confer all the attendant benefits to the petitioner not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.