ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Revisional order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/Rev/PP/2013-81, dated 22.04.2013, modifying the order passed by the 4th respondent in his Appellate order No.V-11014/43/INT/Disc/2012-9828, dated 29.11.2012, confirming the order passed by the 5th respondent in his final order No.V- 15014/CISF/TPT/Disc/Maj-11/PP/ 2009/2755, dated 18.08.2012, quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of CISF as Constable with all monetary benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as Constable and joined in service in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 01.09.1989 at Chennai. He underwent training for nine months up to the year 1990 at RTC Deoli, Rajasthan and was posted at BCCJ, Jharia. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at various places in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli, Vizag, Andhra Pradesh and BHEL, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh. From BHEL, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was transferred and posted to Tuticorin Port Trust, under the 2nd respondent with effect from July 2009. 3. While so, the petitioner was detailed in 'B' shift duty at Check Post-I of Tuticorin Port Trust on 18.08.2009 between 13.00 and 21.00 hours along with one Head Constable N.Subramanian. The petitioner had declared Rs.40/- as pocket money and the said Head Constable N.Subramanian had declared Rs.30/- as pocket money. Out of Rs.40/-, the petitioner gave Rs.20/- to the Head Constable N.Subramanian, to arrange tiffin for him since he was new to the said Port, as he was recently appointed only in July 2009. 4. At that time, a surprise check was conducted by the Assistant Commandant, one Mr.J.M.U.Koya and the Inspector Executive one K.Annamalai on the said date i.e., on 18.08.2009 at 19.45 hours. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the said Inspector Executive K.Annamalai recovered a sum of Rs.17/- from the pocket of the petitioner and Rs.45/- from Head Constable N.Subramanian and G.D. Entry to that effect was made about 20.20 hours. Subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by SI/Executive Mr.Gurpreet Singh, who recorded statements of some witnesses including the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya, Inspector Executive K.Annamalai, Head Constable N.Subramanian, P.Pandian, the petitioner herein, and the Constable M.A.G.S.Velu. 6. Subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by SI/Executive Mr.Gurpreet Singh, who recorded statements of some witnesses including the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya, Inspector Executive K.Annamalai, Head Constable N.Subramanian, P.Pandian, the petitioner herein, and the Constable M.A.G.S.Velu. 6. Pursuant to the preliminary enquiry, a Special Report was submitted, stating that, suitable action may be taken against HC/GD N.Subramanian. However, a charge memo under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, was issued on 19.09.2009 against the petitioner with the following Article of Charge. “As per standing instructions as circulated by CISF Unit TPT Tuticorin Office Order No.E-42099/CISF/TPT/O.O/2006 /991, dated 12/05/06, restrictions have been imposed for keeping of cash with CISF personnel while on duty. As per standing instructions, before mounting for their possession with its denomination in the duty register. On 18.08.2009 from 13.00 to 21.00 hours No.891401063 Const P.Pandian of CISF Unit TPT Tuticorin was detailed for 'B' shift duty at Check Post-I along with HC/GD N.Subramanian. Before mounting for duty he declared in the duty register about an amount of Rs.40/- in his possession. On 18.08.09 at about 19.45 hours Shri.J.M.U.Koya, Asstt Commandant and Insp.Exe K.Annamalai have carried out surprise checking of Check Post-I and the CISF personnel performing security duties at the check post. During the surprise checking the Asstt Commandant directed Insp/E K.Annamalai to check the amount in possession of Const P.Pandian and during the checking the Constable was found in possession of a sum of Rs.17/- in his pocket having denomination of one ten rupee note, one five rupee coin and one two rupee coin. Then the officers carry out a detailed checking of the surrounding area of Check Post-I. During the checking of surrounding area Shri.J.M.U.Koya, Asstt Commandant and Insp/Exe. K.Annamalai have found a bunch of currency notes hidden in a pit adjacent to Check post-I. Insp/Exe K.Annamalai picked up the currency bundle and counted the same in the presence of Const P.Pandian and Head Constable/GD N.Subramanian and found a sum of Rs.419.50 having denomination of one hundred rupee note, one fifty rupee note, one twenty rupee note, twenty two ten rupee notes, four five rupee coins, three two rupee coins, three one rupee coins and one fifty paise coin in the bundle. On further questioning by the checking officers, Const.P.Pandian declined to disclose about the source of money. In this connection, a G.D. Entry was made vide No.585 dated 18.08.09 at 20.20 hrs. On further questioning by the checking officers, Const.P.Pandian declined to disclose about the source of money. In this connection, a G.D. Entry was made vide No.585 dated 18.08.09 at 20.20 hrs. A seizure Memo dated 18.08.09 was also prepared. The recovery of Rs.419.50 from a pit near to the duty post where the individual was performing security duty indicates that Const P.Pandian has dishonestly earned a sum of Rs.419.50 while performing security duty through illegal ways from undisclosed sources. The above said act on the part of Const P.Pandian of CISF Unit TPT Tuticorin amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and violation of orders unbecoming of a member of the disciplined paramilitary force. Hence the charge.” 7. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner had given his defence statement immediately. In the said defence statement, the petitioner had denied all the allegations made against him in the Article of charge and also, the petitioner has stated that he was new to Tuticorin Port Trust and he had no connection with the alleged money of Rs.419.50 seized only from the Check Post-I area. 8. However, not satisfying with the defence statement given by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry, where the statements/evidences of the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya, Inspector Executive K.Annamalai and Constable M.A.G.S.Velu were recorded. The petitioner was permitted to examine the defence witnesses. Accordingly, four defence witnesses namely (1) G.Jeyakumar (2) P.Suresh Kumar (3) P.Ravi and (4) N.Subramanian, Head Constable, were examined and their statements were recorded. Thereafter, the enquiry was concluded by the Enquiry Officer and he had submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. 9. As against the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.8121 of 2010, where this Court, though initially granted Interim Order, restraining the respondents from taking any steps, pursuant to the charge memo and the Enquiry Report, the said Writ Petition was subsequently dismissed on the ground that a connected Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. 10. Thereafter, the matter was once again remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority, where the petitioner had been issued with the Second Show Cause Notice dated 16.12.2011 seeking further explanation from the petitioner. 10. Thereafter, the matter was once again remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority, where the petitioner had been issued with the Second Show Cause Notice dated 16.12.2011 seeking further explanation from the petitioner. After getting such explanation, from the petitioner, the 5th respondent has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner by order dated 18.08.2012. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent on 30.08.2012 and the 4th respondent also rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of punishment by his order dated 29.11.2012. As against the order of the Appellate Authority, a revision was filed by the petitioner on 24.12.2012 before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, however, passed final order on 22.04.2013, only modifying the order of punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits with effect from 19.08.2012. 11. Thereafter, aggrieved over the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer. 12. On behalf of all the respondents, the 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein the averments made and the grounds raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, are mostly denied. 13. The respondents through their counter affidavit contended that, the enquiry was properly conducted as per the procedure laid down under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. 14. Based on the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report on 21.06.2010 holding that, the article of charge levelled against the petitioner, has been proved and the copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to the petitioner on 22.06.2010 with a direction to submit his representation, if any, within a period of 15 days and the enquiry report supplied was received and acknowledged by the petitioner on 23.06.2010. 15. The counter would further state that, instead of filing any defence statement/objection against the Enquiry Report, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.(MD).8121 of 2010, wherein he raised a ground that he was not permitted to produce the Head Constable N.Subramanian, as his defence witness, before the Enquiry Officer. However, the counter would state that the fact remains that, the department individual objected to take the Head Constable N.Subramanian, as defence witness and in fact, it was permitted. However, the counter would state that the fact remains that, the department individual objected to take the Head Constable N.Subramanian, as defence witness and in fact, it was permitted. Three civilians were permitted to examine as defence witnesses and the said Head Constable N.Subramanian, being a departmental witness and no specific mention about him was made by the petitioner, in the permission letter. Therefore, the petitioner was free to produce a departmental person as defence witness, during the course of departmental enquiry. 16. The counter would further state that, in view of the Writ Appeal filed by the co-delinquent i.e., the Head Constable N.Subramanian, in W.A.No.17 of 2011 against the order passed in W.P.No.7819 of 2010 filed by him, was dismissed, the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.8121 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed. 17. It is further averred in the counter that, thereafter, when the petitioner filed W.A.(MD) No.655 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 09.09.2011, disposed of the said appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, with a direction to the 6th respondent to reopen the case and conduct the enquiry by permitting the petitioner to examine his defence witnesses and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks. 18. It is further stated in the counter that, the Enquiry Officer had issued notice to the Head Constable N.Subramanian, as defence witness, on 16.11.2011. The said Head Constable N.Subramanian attended enquiry before the Enquiry Officer and his statement was recorded in the presence of the petitioner. Further, necessary opportunity of examining the said witness was also given by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner and after completing the enquiry, it was closed and based on which, the Enquiry Officer has given his report. Based on the Enquiry Officer's report as well as the representation given by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order inflicting punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Against which, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and further, a revision before the Revisional Authority filed by the petitioner was considered, even though the charges framed against the petitioner was proved. According to the Enquiry Officer's Report, the manner in which the enquiry conducted was in accordance with the rules. Against which, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and further, a revision before the Revisional Authority filed by the petitioner was considered, even though the charges framed against the petitioner was proved. According to the Enquiry Officer's Report, the manner in which the enquiry conducted was in accordance with the rules. After recording these aspects, the Revisional Authority, considering the long service rendered by the petitioner, has taken a lenient view, by thus, modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits. 19. I have heard Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Ravichandran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, it is not the case of the respondents that money was recovered from the petitioner. If some currency notes wrapped in a piece of paper found and allegedly picked up during the surprise check up from the earth, it cannot be said that, it is only the petitioner had been the responsibility for the said unaccounted money. He would further state that, there is a vast difference between the report in the G.D.Entry and the Special Report submitted by the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya and his deposition before the Enquiry Officer. 21. The learned counsel would further submit that in fact, the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya, in his Special Report, had only recommended that suitable action to be taken against the Head Constable N.Subramanian, for which, the statement obtained from the petitioner, the Inspector Executive K.Annamalai and the Constable M.A.G.S.Velu, as well as the Seizure Memo and the extracted copy of the GD Entry as well as the Money Declaration Register were enclosed. When that being so, unfortunately, for the reasons best known to them, the respondents issued a charge memo against the petitioner. However, the fact remains that neither money has been recovered, nor allegations had been made against the petitioner, even according to the Special Report submitted by the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya, pursuant to the Preliminary Enquiry. 22. The learned counsel would also submit that, in fact, the fingers were shown, by the Department, from the initiation, only against the Head Constable N.Subramanian, whereas, instead of framing charge against him, the Department has turned it towards the petitioner, for absolutely no reason. 23. 22. The learned counsel would also submit that, in fact, the fingers were shown, by the Department, from the initiation, only against the Head Constable N.Subramanian, whereas, instead of framing charge against him, the Department has turned it towards the petitioner, for absolutely no reason. 23. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the following Judgments, in support of the case of the petitioner. “(1) In W.P.No.1365 of 2011 in the matter of M.Ramasamy v. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Southern Sector Head Quarters, Chennai, dated 10.12.2012. (2) In W.P.(MD).No.3513 of 2010 in the matter of C.Rajagopal -vs- Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and others, dated 16.04.2014.” 24. By relying upon the said Judgments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the principle laid down in those cases, almost on similar situation and facts, can very well be applied to the case in hand, and the petitioner since is innocent and no way connected with the alleged charge, he can be exonerated and the impugned orders passed in this regard by the respondents from the Disciplinary Authority to the Revisional Authority, are liable to be set aside. 25. Per contra, Mr.N.Ravichandran, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents would state that, as has been narrated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, all the procedures contemplated under the Rules have been followed in conducting and completing the enquiry, where necessary opportunity to examine the witnesses were given to the petitioner and he was permitted to produce the defence side witnesses and also, he was permitted to examine the Head Constable N.Subramanian as defence witness, even though he is a departmental person and after having completed the examination of witnesses, the Enquiry Officer finalized his report and submitted the same to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges framed against the petitioner was proved. Thereafter, further opportunity was given to the petitioner to give his explanation, which was also availed by the petitioner and only thereafter, the punishment of dismissal from service was made against the petitioner. 26. Thereafter, further opportunity was given to the petitioner to give his explanation, which was also availed by the petitioner and only thereafter, the punishment of dismissal from service was made against the petitioner. 26. The learned counsel would also submit that, the petitioner's involvement as a member of uniformed disciplinary force, even a small iota of violation of Rules that too involvement of illegal gratification is noticed, that would have a great impact in the Force itself and therefore, no lenient view can be taken against the petitioner. Since the petitioner was put on duty on the relevant date and time, where surprise check up was made by the higher officials and during the date and time, it was found that the currency note was wrapped in a paper bundle recovered from a pit near to the duty check post and in order to vouch the same, he signed in the Mahazar. All the factual aspects would go to show that the petitioner was fully responsible to explain as to how the money has come there. 27. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would further submit that, if at all, the petitioner was innocent, as his pocket money was tallying with the account as declared at the time of coming to the duty on the said date and if the petitioner found that the co-security personnel Head Constable N.Subramanian had been indulging in receiving illegal gratification from the vehicle/Truck drivers/owner, then the petitioner could have reported the same to the higher officials. Instead, the petitioner was keeping himself mum and he had not uttered anything about the co-security person and this conduct of the petitioner would go to show that the petitioner also, in connivance with the said Head Constable N.Subramanian, had indulged in receipt of illegal gratification and therefore, the Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry, has come to the conclusion that the charge was proved. Accordingly, the maximum punishment of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority was inflicted and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. However, the Revisional Authority, by taking a lenient view, sympathetically considering the long service rendered by the petitioner and the family circumstances of the petitioner, has modified the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that there is no infirmity in the order impugned. 28. However, the Revisional Authority, by taking a lenient view, sympathetically considering the long service rendered by the petitioner and the family circumstances of the petitioner, has modified the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that there is no infirmity in the order impugned. 28. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the counsels appearing for the parties and also, have considered the materials placed before this Court for perusal. 29. The sum and substance of the charge made against the petitioner is that a sum of Rs.419.50/- was wrapped in a piece of paper which was seized from the pit near to the duty Check Post, where the petitioner was performing security duty which indicates that the petitioner had dishonestly earned a sum of Rs.419.50/-, while performing security duty through illegal ways from undisclosed sources. The said act on the part of the petitioner amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and violation of orders, unbecoming of a member of the disciplined paramilitary force, and accordingly, charge was framed. 30. Before going into the veracity of the charge, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the contradiction between the extract of G.D. Entry and the Special Report forwarded by the Assistant Commandant, can be looked into. 31. In the GD Entry extract, which was prepared on the spot on 18.08.2009 at 20.20 hours, by the Inspector Executive K.Annamalai, it is stated as follows: “Shri J.M.U.Koya, AC, and myself K.Annamalai carried out checking of sentry post and near by area. Shri J.M.U.Koya, AC, picked up a small bundle of currency notes which was duly wrapped by piece of paper (Emphasis supplied) which was kept near by partition dias by removing piece of stone as weight. The said amount was seized in presence of Ct. P.Pandian. The small bundle was handed over to Ct. P.Pandian for counting the same, who in turn counted and accounted. The denomination of the currency notes. The said amount was seized in presence of Ct. P.Pandian. The small bundle was handed over to Ct. P.Pandian for counting the same, who in turn counted and accounted. The denomination of the currency notes. (1) 100 x 1 100.00 (i) 50 x 1 50.00 (ii) 20 x 1 20.00 (iii) 10 x 22 220.00 (iv) 5 x 4 20.00 (v) 2 x 3 6.00 (vi) 1 x 3 3.00 (vii) 0.50x1 0.50 419.50 (Rupees four hundred and nineteen and paise fifty only) The seizure list was prepared on the spot and made report on the checking register of Check Post-I. During the formal enquiry, HC/GD N.Subramanian and Ct P.Pandian declined to disclose about the source of money seized from the earth and his possession of HC/GD N.Subramanian, a sum of Rs.45/- seized from him. Lodged for information and action. Sd./....... K.Annamalai, Insp/Exe. 32. Whereas the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya had sent a Special Report on the surprise checking and seizure of Rs.464.50. In the said Special Report, in Subject portion, it is stated that “on surprise checking, seizure of Rs.464.50 from the possession of HC/GD N.Subramaniam –reg”. 33. In order to appreciate the said factor, the entire Special Report of the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya is reproduced hereunder: The Commandant, CISF Unit TPT, Tuticorin. Sub: SPECIAL REPORT ON SURPRISE CHECKING, SEIZURE OF RS.464.50 FROM THE POSSESSION OF HC/GD N.SUBRAMANIAM : REG. It is to inform that I, Asstt Commandant J.M.U.Koya along with Insp/Exe K.Annamalai carried out surprise checking on 18.08.2009 at about 19.45 hrs at Check Post-I where HC/GD N.Subramanian and Const.P.Pandian were deployed in 'B' Shift duty on 18.08.2009 from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs. Both the duty personnel were called in the duty room at the Check Post-I and carried out searching on them. While carrying out the searching on Const.P.Pandian, a sum of Rs.17/- was found in his pocket and a sum of Rs.45/- was found in the pocket of HC/GD N.Subramanian. After that checked the surrounding area of Check Post-I and found a wrapped bundle of paper which was concealed under a small piece of stone near the right side of adjacent Room of Check Post-I besides a cement bricks on the road divider. Then the bundle was recovered and asked Const.P.Pandian to open. Accordingly, he opened and found a sum of Rs.419.50. Then the bundle was recovered and asked Const.P.Pandian to open. Accordingly, he opened and found a sum of Rs.419.50. On asking HC/GD N.Subramanian about the source of money which was recovered near his duty post as well as from his pocket, he stated that he had in possession of Rs.30/- as pocket money while mounting of duty which was already declared by him in the duty register. Further he could not explain about the source of money i.e., Rs.419.50 recovered from adjacent of his duty post. In this connection a GD entry was made vide No.585 at 2020 hrs dated 18.08.2009 in the Control Room. After that a seizure list has been prepared in presence of HC/GD N.Subramaniam and Const.P.Pandian, and asked them for putting their signature on the seizure list. HC/GD N.Subraamanian declined to sign on seizure memo. Further Const.P.Pandian deposed in his statement that while mounting for duty, he declared Rs.40/- as pocket money, out of which Rs.23/- was spent and the balance amount of Rs.17/- kept in his pocket. On checking of money declaration register, HC/GD N.Subramanian declared a sum of Rs.30/- and Const. P.Pandian declared a sum of Rs.40/- while mounting on 'B' Shift duty. It is further informed that as per the office order issued vide letter No.E-42099/CISF/TPT/PA/O.O/2006-1991, dated 12.05.2006 under no circumstances the personnel proceeding for shift duties will not carry more than Rs.10/-. In view of the above facts, suitable action may please be taken against the HC/GD N.Subramaniam. Statement obtained and extract copy of GD entry as well as money declaration register of 'B' shift duty are enclosed herewith for perusal please. Submitted please. ASSTT COMMANDANT CISF UNIT TPT TUTICORIN 34. In fact, in the said Special Report, the Assistant Commandant has recommended to take suitable action only against the Head Constable N.Subramanian. Enabling for such suitable disciplinary action, the Assistant Commandant had forwarded the statements obtained from the Constable P.Pandian (the petitioner herein), Inspector Executive K.Annamalai and Constable M.A.G.S.Velu, seizure memo and extract copy of G.D.Entry as well as the money declaration Register of ‘B’ Shift duty as enclosures along with the Special Report. 35. These factors would go to show that what exactly happened on the date of surprise checking conducted by the Assistant Commandant and the Inspector Executive, has been clearly spelt out. 36. 35. These factors would go to show that what exactly happened on the date of surprise checking conducted by the Assistant Commandant and the Inspector Executive, has been clearly spelt out. 36. The alleged currency notes wrapped in a paper found and recovered form the earth near by the duty area of the petitioner as well as the Head Constable N.Subramanian, were neither recovered from the petitioner nor from the Head Constable N.Subramanian. However, depending upon the circumstances, it was construed by the Assistant Commandant and the Inspector Executive, who conducted the surprise check up that the recovery of money of Rs.464.50 which is unaccounted, has to be vouched by the Head Constable N.Subramanian and therefore, in the Special Report, suitable action was recommended only against the said Head Constable N.Subramanian. 37. However, within a span of 30 days, on 19.09.2009, charge memo was issued against the petitioner, wherein the article of charge, which has already been extracted, would state that the Inspector Executive K.Annamalai, picked up the currency bundle and counted the same in the presence of P.Pandian, the petitioner herein, and the Head Constable N.Subramanian, and found a sum of Rs.419.50. The charge would further state that the recovery of Rs.419.50 from a pit near to the duty post, where the individual was performing security duty, indicates that the Constable P.Pandian has dishonestly earned Rs.419.50, while performing security duty through illegal ways from undisclosed sources. 38. Before making the charge, the Disciplinary Authority should have definitely gone through the extract of G.D.Entry as well as the Special Report filed by the Assistant Commandant. Neither the extract of G.D. Entry nor the Special Report suggest that the reason attributable for the unaccounted money of Rs.419.50 was because of the alleged dishonest earning on the part of the Constable Pandian, the petitioner herein. From which source and on the basis of which document or prima facie evidence/proof, the Authority came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner is proved, is miserably unavailable. 39. Before the Enquiry Officer, three persons were examined as prosecution witnesses and three other persons were examined as defence witnesses. Where the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya deposed as PW1 has stated that, a bunch of currency notes kept hidden in a pit was recovered by the Inspector Executive P.Annamalai. 39. Before the Enquiry Officer, three persons were examined as prosecution witnesses and three other persons were examined as defence witnesses. Where the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya deposed as PW1 has stated that, a bunch of currency notes kept hidden in a pit was recovered by the Inspector Executive P.Annamalai. He also deposed that the Head Constable N.Subramanian declared Rs.30/- and the petitioner Pandian declared Rs.40/- as pocket money at the time of reporting duty. The Constable Pandian informed that he had spent an amount of Rs.23/- for purchase of tiffin and the remaining amount of Rs.17/- was found in his possession and the seizure list was prepared at the spot, however, the Head Constable N.Subramanian refused to sign in the seizure list. 40. During the cross examination, PW1 clarified that he did not see the charged official (petitioner), while collecting money from the Port users and he also did not witness the charged official, while hiding in a pit adjacent to Check Post-1. 41. Like that, the Inspector Executive P.Annamalai had deposed before the Enquiry Officer, as PW2. He deposed saying that on suspicion, the Assistant Commandant removed the small stone and a bunch of currency notes were kept and he called him and shown the currency notes. Thereafter, he handed over to the Constable Pandian, which is found as Rs.419.50. Thereafter, the seizure list was prepared and the Head Constable N.Subramanian refused to sign in the seizure list. PW1, in his cross examination, has deposed saying that the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya, had picked up the bundle of currency notes, which was kept hidden near the Check Post-1. 42. On seeing the depositions of PW1 and PW2, who are the actual persons conducted the surprise check up, one can easily finds that there are number of contradictions between the statements of two witnesses. The Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya says that the Inspector Executive K.Annamalai removed a small stone and found a bunch of currency notes kept hidden in a pit and he handed over the paper bundle to the petitioner Pandian. Whereas, PW2, the Inspector Executive K.Annamalai says that the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya had picked up the bundle of currency notes, which was kept hidden in a pit. Whereas, PW2, the Inspector Executive K.Annamalai says that the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya had picked up the bundle of currency notes, which was kept hidden in a pit. As I noticed earlier, from the Extract of GD Entry, which was prepared at 20.20 hours on the said date, by the Inspector Executive K.Annamalai, he has categorically stated that the paper wrapped bundle of currency was picked up by the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya. Only based on such G.D.Entry, a Special Report was prepared and sent by the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya, wherein, he has stated that money was recovered from the possession of Head Constable N.Subramanian and therefore, he recommended to take action against the Head Constable N.Subramanian. These contradictions cannot be taken lightly because, except PW1 and PW2, no other persons involved in the surprise check up and no other eye witnesses were availed to vouch or reiterate the stand taken by PW1 and PW2. Even the said PW1 and PW2 have not spoken in unison or in one voice and they have given contradictory statements. 43. It is an admitted case that, no money, not even a single rupee, was recovered from the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that, at the time of reporting duty on the said date, the petitioner declared Rs.40/- as pocket money. Out of which, he spent Rs.23/- for the purchase of food and therefore, the remaining amount of Rs.17/- kept at his pocket, was recovered by PW1 and PW2. After having accepted the same, the said amount of Rs.17/- was returned to the petitioner. Only on that basis, a Special Report was prepared by the Assistant Commandant, where recommendation has been made to initiate action against the Head Constable N.Subramanian and the Special Report prepared by the Assistant Commandant Mr.J.M.U.Koya also indicates that a sum of Rs.419.50/- was recovered from the Head Constable N.Subramanian. 44. When that being the position, how charges have been framed against the petitioner and on the basis of which materials, actions have been taken by the respondents, have not been explained by the respondents. 45. Further, before the Enquiry Officer, three defence witnesses were examined and in the depositions of the said three witnesses on the defence side, i.e., DW1, DW2 and DW3, have deposed before the Enquiry Officer. 45. Further, before the Enquiry Officer, three defence witnesses were examined and in the depositions of the said three witnesses on the defence side, i.e., DW1, DW2 and DW3, have deposed before the Enquiry Officer. In order to appreciate the said evidences, extract of the statements of defence witnesses, as mentioned by the Enquiry Officer, is reproduced hereunder: “STATEMENTS OF DEFENCE WITNESSES:- The DW-1: Mr.G.Jeya Kumar an employee of Tuticorin Port Trust stated that, he was performing his duties in Tuticorin Port Trust since 19/11/1992 as an Out Door Clerk. On dated 18/08/09 he was detailed for duty from 1400 hours to 22.00 hours at Pass Section of Check Post-I which was at a distance of 30 feet from CISF Check Post-I. He stood outside the Pass Section during his duty hours for watching the vehicles like Pay loader, Crane and Pull Dozer etc. which were not issued with vehicle pass and also ensure their signature on the registers of the pass section. On that day, HC/GD N.Subramanian and Const/GD P.Pandian were performing their duty at Check Post-I and both the CISF personnel did not receive any bribe money from any port users. During cross examination by the presenting officer, the DW-1 clarified that he was regularly standing out side the pass section for watching the vehicles which were not issued with the vehicle pass and to get their signature on the register at the pass section. He also clarified that he had been the CISF officers who came at the Check Post-I for surprise checking but he was not aware of the details of money recovered/seized at Check Post-I by the CISF officers. The DW-2: Mr.P.Suresh Kumar stated in his statement that he was performing duties in M/s.Nithyanantham & Company as Supervisor. He was detailed by the company officials to hand over some documents and money to the hired trucks of his company. So he was waiting at the road divider near CISF Check Post-I from 12.00 hours to 17.00 Hrs on 18/08/09. Moreover on that particular day three hired trucks of his company come late due to an accident. During his stay at Check Post-I, he noticed that both the CISF duty personnel were not taking any money illegally from Truck Drivers, Supervisors and other personnel. Moreover on that particular day three hired trucks of his company come late due to an accident. During his stay at Check Post-I, he noticed that both the CISF duty personnel were not taking any money illegally from Truck Drivers, Supervisors and other personnel. During cross examination by the presenting officer, the DW-2 clarified that he remained near road divider at Check Post-I from 1200 to 1700 hrs on 18.08.2009. He further clarified that he was not aware of surprise checking carried out by CISF officers at the Check Post-I on 18.08.2009. The DW-3: Mr.Ravi has stated that he was performing duties with M/s.Raja Agency as a Supervisor. He was detailed by his company officials to deliver some money to his transport agency trucks for which he was waiting near the Check Post-I from 16.30 hrs to 2000 hrs on 18.08.2009. Moreover, on that particular day, the trucks of his agency were not coming in time. During his stay at Check Post-I, he noticed that both the CISF duty personnel had not taken any money illegally from Truck Drivers, Supervisors and other personnel. Finally the Trucks of his Transport Agency came at around 2000 hrs. During cross examination by the presenting officer, the DW-3 clarified that he remained near Check Post-I from 16.30 to 19.45 hrs on 18.08.2009. He further clarified that he was not aware of surprise checking carried out by CISF officers at the Check Post-I on 18.08.2009.” 46. When there were specific contradictions between the depositions of PW1 and PW2, even with regard to the picking up of the currency notes, the Enquiry Officer easily brushed aside the said contradictions and simply stated that the Assistant Commandant and the Inspector have jointly made a surprise check up and recovered the money by both PW1 and PW2. The theory of picking of the recovered amount of Rs.419.50/- allegedly wrapped in a paper found in a pit near the check post, has been completely changed, by introducing the new theory by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer either should have accepted the version of PW1 or the other version of PW2. Instead, the Enquiry Officer had given a third version in his enquiry report, to state that both PW1 and PW2 recovered the bundle. The Enquiry Officer either should have accepted the version of PW1 or the other version of PW2. Instead, the Enquiry Officer had given a third version in his enquiry report, to state that both PW1 and PW2 recovered the bundle. These findings itself would make us to come to the safe conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has given his findings, not only on the basis of the material evidences and the depositions made before him, but also based on surmises and by introducing his own theory. 47. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer, in the penultimate para has stated that, both the charged officials (the Petitioner and the Head Constable N.Subramanian) performed their duty at a particular area on 18.08.2009 and the charged official have also involved in corrupt activity by conniving with the Head Constable N.Subramanian. In order to evaluate the same, the Enquiry Officer's report is reproduced hereunder: “Further, both the charged official and HC/GD N.Subramanian performed duty at a particular duty post on 18.08.2009 and the charged official also involved in corrupt activity by conniving with the HC/GD N.Subramanian. To prove his innocence the charged official should have informed the shift in- charge about the collection of illegal money from the port users as and when the co-duty personnel involved in such corrupt activity, which he failed to do so. Further, it is quite evident from the documents adduced during the course of enquiry, the charged official had dishonestly earned a sum of Rs.419.50 in association with HC/GD N.Subramanian while performing security duties through illegal ways from undisclosed sources. Findings Considering all aspects in view, I the Enquiry Officer found that the Article of charge stands PROVED” 48. However, the Disciplinary Authority, while considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, has given his own reasoning to come to the conclusion to punish the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, in the order of punishment dated 18.08.2012, has stated as follows: “Though the AC has recommended for disciplinary action against HC/GD N.Subramanian only, it doesn't mean that disciplinary authority shall act under the said recommendation only. Since the amount was seized from their area of jurisdiction and if the charged official was not part and parcel of misconduct committed by his co-duty man N.Subramanian, the charged official should have prevented his colleague, and if he could not control him, charged official should have communicated it to any of superiors, but utterly failed. Since the amount was seized from their area of jurisdiction and if the charged official was not part and parcel of misconduct committed by his co-duty man N.Subramanian, the charged official should have prevented his colleague, and if he could not control him, charged official should have communicated it to any of superiors, but utterly failed. Disciplinary Authority has its own power to assess the each case at his discretion and I found that there is no procedural lapse on this count.” 49. In the very same order, the Disciplinary Authority also, while overlooking the defence taken by the petitioner, has stated that, the Head Constable N.Subramanian has been awarded penalty in this case. Therefore, from the reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority, it comes to know that the Head Constable N.Subramanian, against whom in fact recommendation was made to initiate action, as per the Special Report submitted by the Assistant Commandant, was only given a penalty. Whereas, the petitioner against whom no report was submitted by the Assistant Commandant, who conducted the surprise check up, has been charged and has been punished with the maximum punishment of dismissal from service. 50. In spite of this lacuna on the part of the respondents, neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority has considered these aspects and have mechanically inflicted the maximum punishment of dismissal from service by the Disciplinary Authority and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. When revision was filed before the Revisional Authority, the said authority has accepted the punishment given and further observed that the departmental enquiry has been conducted in a fair manner and due procedure required has been followed. However, considering the long service rendered by the petitioner, has sympathetically modified the punishment, to that of 'compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits w.e.f.19.08.2012'. 51. In fact, a similar issue came up for hearing before me as against the very same CISF Unit at Tuticorin Port Trust, where also almost on similar fact, the said security personnel had been removed from service. 51. In fact, a similar issue came up for hearing before me as against the very same CISF Unit at Tuticorin Port Trust, where also almost on similar fact, the said security personnel had been removed from service. In the said case, in W.P.(MD).No.1009 of 2010 in G.Ramasamy (died) S.R.Gowri substituted for the deceased sole petitioner v. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi, by Judgment dated 25.01.2017, I have considered two decisions i.e., W.P.No.1365 of 2017 and W.P.No.(MD).3513 of 2010, which have been again cited herein by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 52. In the said case in W.P.No.(MD).1009 of 2010 cited supra, somewhat it was slightly better case from the side of the prosecution. In that case, two security personnels were on duty at the time of surprise check up and one security personnel threw the currency note wrapped with rubber band. Based on which, charge has been framed against another security personnel also on the ground that the said bunch of currency notes said to have been found on the earth and the same was handed over by the other security personnel, who was the petitioner in that Writ Petition and when the same was kept by other security personnel, he had thrown it at the time of surprise check up. Even in the said case, the personnel, who thrown the wrapped up currency notes, was given lesser punishment and the said security personnel, who was the petitioner in W.P.No.(MD).1009 of 2010, was given the maximum punishment of dismissal from service. While dealing with the said matter, I have given my reasonings to set aside the said punishment at Paras 18 to 21, which are extracted hereunder: “18. In this regard, this Court, when raised a question that if the theory of the department that at the time of surprise inspection, a bundle of currency was thrown suddenly by the said Sadashiv and on recovering the same, when it was questioned both the petitioner herein and the said Sadashiv had given a statement, which in fact, lead to frame charges against them, then, certainly, money, if it is a ill gotten money must be for the benefit of both the petitioner as well as the said Constable Sadashiv. Assuming that the said Sadashiv is an innocent and he had been with the possession of the money, only because it was given by the said Ramasamy ie., the petitioner herein and therefore, the said Sadashiv could be an innocent one, than the Sadashiv could not have been given a punishment, even a minimum punishment of stoppage of increment. If the money was thrown only by the said Sadashiv, then, either the petitioner can have the joint responsibility with the said Sadashiv or the petitioner can claim innocence, as from whom no money was recovered or the petitioner had not thrown any money, at the time of surprise inspection, in that case, the petitioner should not have been inflicted with the maximum punishment of removal of service. Moreover, none of the eye witnesses, as has been claimed by the department, has deposed before the Enquiry Officer that they saw the incident of throwing the bundle of currency by the said Sadashiv. What they merely said is that at 13 hours when they were near to the blue gate, these team of officers came up for inspection and immediately, when the duty time was over, they left the spot or what had happened in the blue gate were not known to them. Moreover, there is no complaint from the container/lorry owners about the demand of any illegal gratification by the petitioner and other Constable, at any rate no such recovery of money has been made from the possession of the petitioner. 19. Therefore, viewing from any angle, fixing connection with the petitioner along with the said incident and based on which, inflicting the maximum punishment of removal of service on the petitioner while giving a minimum punishment to the co-delinquent ie., Constable Sadashiv is not acceptable one, because there is no proof or evidence to show that the money was recovered from the petitioner. 20. 20. The alternative theory submitted as defence by the petitioner that actually the bundle of currency contains of 2 - 100 rupee note and one - 50 rupee note was taken from the floor along side the gate and it was handed over to Sadashiv for enabling them to hand it over to the concerned official at the time of completion of the duty, to some extent, may be acceptable, because normally this kind of gratification received by the members of the uniformed services may not be by way of bundle wrapped with rubber band and this kind of keeping some minimum money by wrapping it as a bundle, is the usual customary practice to be adopted by the Drivers of the vehicle. Therefore, even there is no chance of arriving a preponderance of probability in this case. 21. Moreover, there is absolutely no nexus with the punishment inflicted on the petitioner and the other co delinquent namely Constable Sadashiv, in spite of the fact that the money was thrown only by the said Sadashiv. Therefore, for all these reasons, and for the principles, as has been applied, by this Court, in the said judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can be easily concluded that the petitioner cannot be said to be involved in the alleged action of illegal gratification, as absolutely, there is no direct or indirect evidences connecting the petitioner for such an alleged violation and therefore, in that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order of punishment of removal of service is liable to be interfered with.” 53. When compared the said facts with the said case cited supra, this Court feels that, the petitioner is in far better position than the said case referred to above. In the case referred to above, it was the allegation that at the time of check up, one security personnel thrown the bunch of currency notes wrapped in the rubber band, whereas, here it is the case of the Department that the currency note was wrapped up in a paper, was found and recovered from the earth. Even based on that, it was a recommendation of the Assistant Commandant, who conducted the surprise check up that, the said money of Rs.419.50 was recovered from the Head Constable N.Subramanian and therefore, the action was recommended against him. Even based on that, it was a recommendation of the Assistant Commandant, who conducted the surprise check up that, the said money of Rs.419.50 was recovered from the Head Constable N.Subramanian and therefore, the action was recommended against him. Whereas, the petitioner, who gave full vouch for the remaining pocket money found in his pocket, has been charged by the Department stating that he was responsible for the said illegal gratification of Rs.419.40/- and if at all, he was not involved in the said illegal gratification, he should have reported the illegal gratification on the part of the Head Constable N.Subramanian and since he has not reported, it should be presumed that he is also, with the connivance of the Head Constable indulged in illegal activity. This kind of reasonings given to make charge against the petitioner is absolutely arbitrary and unjustifiable. Moreover, it is a great contradiction between PW1 and PW2, who are not only the eye witness, but also the actual persons, who conducted the surprise check up. 54. From the beginning till end, the contradictions continue, as PW2 says that the wrapped up currency notes was picked up by PW1 and whereas PW1 says it was picked by PW2. Though the Enquiry Officer stated that it was picked up by both PW1 and PW2, this Court is at loss to understand on what basis the Enquiry Officer has given the said reasonings. It is the case of the Department that a sum of Rs.419.50 was found in the denomination of the Currency notes, which has been mentioned as follows: “The denomination of the currency notes. (1) 100 x 1 100.00 (i) 50 x 1 50.00 (ii) 20 x 1 20.00 (iii) 10 x 22 220.00 (iv) 5 x 4 20.00 (v) 2 x 3 6.00 (vi) 1 x 3 3.00 (vii) 0.50x1 0.50 419.50 (Rupees four hundred and nineteen and paise fifty only)” 55. It is not only the currency notes of Rs.100/-, Rs.50/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.5, but also a currency notes of Rs.1/- (3 Nos) and 1 No. of 50 paise coin. 56. If at all, any illegal gratification is received by the security personnel, it cannot be said that they would have received Rs.1/- and one number of 50 paise coin. Only, in this context, my reasoning given in the earlier order in W.P.No.(MD).1009 of 2010 referred to above, can be pressed into service. 56. If at all, any illegal gratification is received by the security personnel, it cannot be said that they would have received Rs.1/- and one number of 50 paise coin. Only, in this context, my reasoning given in the earlier order in W.P.No.(MD).1009 of 2010 referred to above, can be pressed into service. In the said order, I have stated that this kind of keeping some minimum sum by wrapping it as a bundle is the usual customary practice to be adopted by the drivers of the vehicle. Here in the case in hand, still, currency notes of various denominations from Rs.100/- to Rs.1/- were part of the bundle and Rs.1/- and 50 paise coin also, and definitely, this denomination would not be an illegal gratification given by the drivers of the vehicles. Moreover, it was specifically deposed by both PW1 and PW2 that they did not witness or see that those money was received by the petitioner or the other security personnel and they also deposed that they did not see whether the wrapped up bundle of currency notes was kept by the security personnels or not. In the absence of any of the ingredient, it cannot be construed that the petitioner was responsible for the said alleged illegal gratification. 57. Moreover, from the beginning, the finger of the prosecution was showing only towards the Head Constable N.Subramanian as against whom only recommendation was made by the Assistant Commandant to initiate action. It is the further fact that the said Head Constable N.Subramanian, has been imposed only penalty, whereas, the petitioner, against whom no direct or indirect evidence available to the prosecution, has been inflicted with the maximum punishment of dismissal from service, which has been subsequently modified to compulsory retirement. This action on the part of the respondents, in the opinion of this Court, on the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, is absolutely unjustifiable and unlawful and therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the said punishment and modification is duly unjustifiable, arbitrary and without any sound basis and hence, this Court has no other option except to interfere with the said order of punishment, as modified by the Revisional Authority. 58. 58. In the result, the impugned orders of punishment of dismissal of service inflicted against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, and modified by the Revisional Authority into compulsory retirement with eligibility of full pensionary benefits, are hereby set aside. 59. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits including back wages, increment, if any, arrears of pay benefits, etc., The aforesaid action of reinstatement and payment of monetary benefits shall be made by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the terms indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.