JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. The appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) being aggrieved of the order dated 27.11.2015 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No.2043 of 2010, has filed the instant appeal, which is at admission stage, but with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, we have taken it on Board for its final consideration. 2. The petitioner was Head Constable-Driver in Central Industrial Security Force (in short, CISF). He was charged on the allegation that on 14.07.2008, during the night duty, he had consumed liquor when he was deployed to drive truck bearing No.BEV-9014 for transporting other CISF personnel to a particular destination, which charge was not proved. The second charge was that on the same fateful day and at the same time, he overtook another truck of CISF from the wrong side resulting into an accident. Although, both the trucks were not mechanically examined by any expert so as to see the damage but, it has come in the enquiry report that there were certain scratches on the rear side of the truck being driven by the petitioner. This charge was however, proved resulting into penalty of reduction of scale to one stage affecting the annual increment of the petitioner in future. 3. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed the appeal which was dismissed and the revision has also met the same fate, which constrained him to move the Writ Court. 4. This charge was however, proved resulting into penalty of reduction of scale to one stage affecting the annual increment of the petitioner in future. 3. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed the appeal which was dismissed and the revision has also met the same fate, which constrained him to move the Writ Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that looking at the charge which is now proved in the enquiry report and as the petitioner himself in the departmental enquiry held against him, has admitted the incident stating that the driver of the other truck which was ahead of him, was not allowing him to overtake the truck and therefore, he overtook that truck from the wrong side and in that process the driver of the other truck all of a sudden turned his truck towards the left side resulting into damage to his truck from the rear -back portion and the main charge of consuming liquor on the fateful day being not proved and considering the manner in which the incident has taken place, which is admitted by the petitioner himself, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, which falls under Rule 34(iv) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (in short, Rules 2001) appears to be too harsh on the face of it. He states that in the present set of circumstances, it is a case which would in any case not fall under any of the major penalties defined in Sub-rule (i) to (iv) of Rule-34 of the Rules, 2001, and that the present case is one in which the petitioner could have been slapped with minor penalty, may be a penalty which falls under Sub-rule (viii) of Rule-34 of the Rules, 2001, which is reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period not exceeding three years but without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus, prays for reduction in the penalty from the major penalty to minor penalty, which argument is controverted by Mr. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus, prays for reduction in the penalty from the major penalty to minor penalty, which argument is controverted by Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents stating that may be the charge of driving the truck in a drunken condition has not been proved on technical grounds, there being no medical evidence in this regard or no witness whispering a word about smell of alcohol but, both the charges if read together, would show that the petitioner in fact has violated the traffic rules and put the other personnel to risk while carrying them from one place to another destination. According to the learned counsel, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner of reduction of scale of one stage affecting his annual increment is justified and it does not call for any further interference. 6. No doubt, one of the main charges against the petitioner was that he had consumed liquor on the fateful day i.e. 14.07.2008 when he had to drive the official vehicle for carrying the CISF personnel from one place to another destination. The second charge as one finds is also related to the first charge as on the same day, the incident had taken place. There appears to be some defects in framing the charges but we do not feel the necessity of commenting upon that at this stage as it would be of no relevance to either side. The fact of the matter is that the main charge of consuming liquor before driving the official truck is not proved on account of any reason whatsoever including, the technical aspect as there is no medical evidence in this regard. The another charge of overtaking another official truck by the petitioner from wrong side is admitted by the petitioner himself by giving some explanation. It does not appear to be a case in which the authority concerned should have resorted to sub-rule (iv) of Rule-34 of the Rules, 2001. We test this case within the parameters of Section 279 of I.P.C., which relates to rash driving or riding on a public way. It does not appear to be a case in which the authority concerned should have resorted to sub-rule (iv) of Rule-34 of the Rules, 2001. We test this case within the parameters of Section 279 of I.P.C., which relates to rash driving or riding on a public way. If anybody is convicted under Section 279 of the I.P.C. while driving any vehicle rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or public or likely to cause hurt or injury of other person is punishable with the imprisonment of either description which may extent to six months or with a fine of Rs.1,000/- or with both. A person who is convicted for the charge of Section 279 of the I.P.C., can be released on probation also for any fixed period. Sub rule (viii) of Rule 34 of the Rules, 2001, deals with the similar situation where there can be reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of an employee for a period not exceeding three years but, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. The case on hand in our view can be very well considered with that yardstick by the disciplinary authority. In this flashback of the facts, imposing of penalty under Rule 34(iv) of the Rules, 2001, by the disciplinary authority appears to be quite harsh to us. 7. The matter vis-a-vis penalty requires to be reconsidered by the disciplinary authority afresh. 8. The net result is that the appeal on hand is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27.11.2015 of learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2043 of 2010 is set aside. The effect thereof would be that the order dated 17.03.2009 pertaining to reduction of scale to one stage of the petitioner which will affect his annual increment is quashed. Resultantly, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 17.07.2009 and the revisional authority dated 15.01.2010 are also quashed. 9. The matter is remitted to respondent no.5 for reconsidering the case of the petitioner afresh on quantum of punishment. An early decision is expected in this regard.