ORDER : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner faced disciplinary inquiry for the charges contained in prescribed Form-(Ka) issued under Memo No. 1348 dated 27th April, 2014. Force No. 932333896, petitioner was posted as constable at CISF, NTPC, Barh. Petitioner while working as constable had responsibility to keep an eye of suspecting activities carried out inside or outside the premises of the organization and to report the competent authority. On 21st April, 2014, it was reported in the local Newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' that a trailer loaded with iron rod and related to NTPC Organization was seized on N.H.-31 in relation to which, the force member did not inform any senior authority nor visited the site though the place of occurrence was within two kilometers of NTPC Complex. Group Commandant called the force in the morning on 23rd April, 2014. On inquiry from the force on 23rd April, 2014, it was replied that he got information of such incidence from Newspapers only and had no other knowledge of it. On the same evening, on being again asked he replied in similar manner. On these allegations he was charge-sheeted. Being a member of C.I.S.F. force, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to obtain complete information about the incidence and report it to the competent authority, which he failed to do. Such acts amounted to dereliction of duty and violation of lawful orders. Petitioner faced departmental proceeding, in which 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Based on the inquiry report, petitioner was asked to submit his reply by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner pleaded innocence. He stated that the place of occurrence was at the distance of two kilometers from N.T.P.C. complex on National Highway-31. He also came to know about the incidence from the Newspaper only. He had no other information about the incidence. The incidence was under the jurisdiction of local police in relation to which an F.I.R. was also lodged by the local police. Investigation was also carried out by the local police. 3. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the material evidence brought during inquiry, inquiry report and the reply of the delinquent petitioner, found the charges established. Disciplinary authority held the petitioner responsible for dereliction in duty and violation of the orders of the superior. Investigation was also carried out by the local police. 3. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the material evidence brought during inquiry, inquiry report and the reply of the delinquent petitioner, found the charges established. Disciplinary authority held the petitioner responsible for dereliction in duty and violation of the orders of the superior. Punishment of withholding annual increment for three years which will not effect his future increment was imposed in terms of Rule 32 Appendix-1 and Rule 34(ix) of C.I.S.F. Rules, 2001 by the impugned order dated 16th May, 2014 (Annexure-3). Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, NTPC, Barh, who did not find any grounds made out to interfere in the order of punishment Accordingly, by appellate authority's order dated 27/28th July, 2014 (Annexure-6), the appeal was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges read with the material adduced during inquiry did not make out any case of misconduct in discharge of official duties. Incidence which occurred beyond two kilometers away from NTPC complex at Barh by seizure of trailer loaded with iron rod by the local police has been made the basis for holding the petitioner responsible though he was posted to guard NTPC complex at Barh. The place of occurrence fell beyond the jurisdiction of NTPC complex on a public highway. The matter was investigated by the local police after the institution of F.I.R. There were four constables on duty as it has come during the course of inquiry. Petitioner's defence has not been appreciated by the disciplinary authority while holding him responsible for dereliction of duty and imposition of punishment. Petitioner has all throughout service been an obedient employee. There is no negligence on the part of the petitioner either. As such, the impugned order suffers from serious error of fact and law which require interference by this Court under the powers of judicial review. 5. Learned counsel for the Union of India has defended the impugned orders. He submits that petitioner being a member of force performing duty in a Unit of CISF was considered to be on duty 24x7. Petitioner did not make any efforts to collect material evidence and relevant information regarding such seizure even though the place of occurrence was very near to the NTPC Plant. He submits that petitioner being a member of force performing duty in a Unit of CISF was considered to be on duty 24x7. Petitioner did not make any efforts to collect material evidence and relevant information regarding such seizure even though the place of occurrence was very near to the NTPC Plant. It was his duty to collect information and furnish to CISF authorities so that timely corrective, investigative and preventive actions could be initiated. In such cases, the timings and duty hours does not matter in uniformed services. A member of the force has to act; irrespective of his duly hours, If any untoward incident has happened which has direct bearing on the men and material security he is deployed in protection of. Twice it was inquired by Group Commandant on 23rd April, 2014 but petitioner refused to have any knowledge of the theft. On both occasions he told that he came to know about the seizure of the trailer from the Newspaper report. Therefore, disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him for the charges. Disciplinary inquiry has been conducted in a fair manner after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Ten witnesses were examined by the Presenting Officer in the presence of the delinquent employee. He had also opportunity to examine and to cross-examine them. The charges were found to be established by the Enquiry Officer. Disciplinary authority has also given him an opportunity to reply after submission of the inquiry report. After consideration of all materials on record the impugned order has been passed. The punishment is not of cumulative effect. Such type of punishment is. proper and necessary to impart discipline in the organization. The appellate authority did not find any worthy ground made out for interference in the order of punishment. Petitioner has also not availed the remedy of revision under C.I.S.F. Rules before approaching this Court in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, writ petition is premature. 6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the relevant materials on record rioted above and also the impugned orders. Material facts noticed above revealed few conspicuous aspect of the matter. Petitioner was posted at NTPC complex, Barh at the relevant point of time. Two kilometers from there, a Trailer loaded with iron rod was seized on National Highway-31 by the local police. I have gone through the relevant materials on record rioted above and also the impugned orders. Material facts noticed above revealed few conspicuous aspect of the matter. Petitioner was posted at NTPC complex, Barh at the relevant point of time. Two kilometers from there, a Trailer loaded with iron rod was seized on National Highway-31 by the local police. It is also stated in the charge-sheet that it was shown to be connected with the NTPC complex. The matter was investigated by the local police as the place of occurrence and the incidence occurred within the jurisdiction of local police i.e. beyond the jurisdiction of CISF Forces who were deputed to guard NTPC complex at Barh. The matter came to the notice of competent authority also through Newspaper. Petitioner on being asked twice two days thereafter reiterated his stand that he also come to know about the incidence through Newspaper and had no other source of information about the incidence. In the inquiry proceeding, the witnesses have not been able to substantiate as to how the seizure was connected with NTPC complex. The delinquent employee could not have been saddled with responsibility to guard or inquire about the incidence which occurred two kilometers away from NTPC Complex which is within the jurisdiction of local police. Materials seized on the trailer loaded with iron rod is not something which was shown to be manufactured or carried out from NTPC complex at Barh which is Thermal Power Project. The Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority seem to have gone in error to proceed against and punish the delinquent employee i.e., petitioner for allegations which on the face of it do not fall within the scope and nature of duties entrusted to be performed by him. Misconduct could only happen if dereliction of duty is shown on the part of the employee within the territories under which he is deputed to discharge official duties. This aspect of the matter has also been overlooked by the appellate authority in his zeal to uphold the order of disciplinary authority. As such, it appears that the petitioner has been punished for a misconduct, which did not fall within the nature and scope of his responsibility. It therefore cannot be said to be a misconduct warranting a disciplinary inquiry leading to impugned punishment. As such, it appears that the petitioner has been punished for a misconduct, which did not fall within the nature and scope of his responsibility. It therefore cannot be said to be a misconduct warranting a disciplinary inquiry leading to impugned punishment. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to interfere in the impugned orders of disciplinary authority dated 27th April, 2014 and appellate authority dated 27th/28th July, 2014. The same are hereby quashed. 7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.