ORDER : Petitioner, who is working as Assistant Sub-Inspector (for short ‘the ASI’) in Central Industrial Security Force (for short ‘the CISF’) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned orders, i.e., the final order dated 04.07.2017, Appellate Order dated 17.08.2017 and Revisional Order dated 10.10.2017, whereby he was imposed with penalty of fine equivalent to three days pay. 2. Heard Sri H.S.Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S. Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Sri H.S. Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner at the relevant 3rd point of time was working as ASI with the respondent and petitioner was posted to work at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, for aviation security duty. He submits that charge memo was issued on 14/16.06.2017 alleging that the petitioner, who was deployed to perform morning flexi duty in ‘B’ Coy from 3.00 hours to 11.00 hours on 29.05.2017 and was directed at 4.00 hours by the SHA I/c to perform duties at X.BIS No.17(ATRS) and he performed frisking duty from 4.00 hours to 4.30 hours. At about 6.00 hours he refused to relieve the SI/Exe P.D. Bunkar, who was deployed at frisking booth and also refused to open another frisking booth even after order by the SHA I/c which amounted to gross disobedience of lawful orders. The Article of charge dated 14/16.06.2017 framed against the petitioner and the reply of the petitioner dated 26.06.2017, are placed on record as Annexures-R2 and R5 to the statement of objection filed by the respondents. In his reply the petitioner denied the allegations made against him. Thereafter considering the reply of the petitioner final order of punishment was passed on 04.07.2017 imposing punishment of fine amount equivalent to his three days pay, which is a minor penalty. Against the order of penalty, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Senior Commandant/CASO Bangalore Airport, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs). The Appellate Authority by order dated 17.08.2017 confirmed the final order of penalty dated 04.07.2017. Thereafter, petitioner preferred revision before the DIG, APSZ, Chennai, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs). The Revisional Authority by order dated 10.10.2017 dismissed the revision confirming the final order of penalty, as well as the order of Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by order dated 17.08.2017 confirmed the final order of penalty dated 04.07.2017. Thereafter, petitioner preferred revision before the DIG, APSZ, Chennai, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs). The Revisional Authority by order dated 10.10.2017 dismissed the revision confirming the final order of penalty, as well as the order of Appellate Authority. Hence the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned orders i.e., the final order, orders of the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondents have not examined any witnesses, but only considering the reply of the petitioner, punishment has been imposed. Further he submits that punishment was imposed by one Sri U.P. Singh, Deputy Commandant, ‘C’ Coy but whereas the charge memo was issued by Assistant Commandant ‘C’ Coy. It is submitted that the petitioner had made allegation against Sri U.P. Singh, Deputy Commandant, that the said ‘U.P. Singh had threatened petitioner with dire consequences’. Therefore, he submits that he could not have passed the final order of punishment against the petitioner and further learned counsel submits that the said person was the complainant and he could not have taken the role of Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty of punishment. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that entire proceedings is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, Sri Beemaiah, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 appeared through video conference and submitted that the Assistant Commandant of Control Room as per Annexure-R1 brought to the notice of the Deputy Commandant, the misconduct of the petitioner, who initiated proceedings under Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules 2001 (for short ‘the 2001 Rules’) for imposition of minor penalty. For imposition of minor penalty it would be sufficient to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner. Further he submits that contention of the petitioner that Sri U.P. Singh, Deputy Commandant, could not have passed the final order of punishment against the petitioner, at whose instance enquiry was initiated, is incorrect. Further he submits that being a Central Armed Force Personal, the petitioner should maintain certain discipline and should obey the command of the higher officials. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Assistant Sub Inspector and was posted to perform his duty at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. Further he submits that being a Central Armed Force Personal, the petitioner should maintain certain discipline and should obey the command of the higher officials. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Assistant Sub Inspector and was posted to perform his duty at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. On 29.05.2017 it is alleged that the petitioner disobeyed the orders of his superior by refusing to open another frisking booth. Hence memorandum of charge dated 14/16.06.2017 Annexure-R-2 was issued to the petitioner. Charge leveled against the petitioner reads as follows :- “ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO.130404158 ASI/EXE SANTOSH KUMAR MAHAVAR OF ‘C’ COY, CISF ASG BANGALORE UNDER RULE 37 OF CISF RULES 2001 (READ WITH AMENDED CISF RULES 2003): That No.130404158 ASI/Exe Santhosh Kumar Mahavar of ‘C’ Coy, CISF ASG Bangalore was deployed for morning Flexi duty in ‘B’ Coy from 0300 hrs to 1100 hrs on 29.05.2017 at Domestic SHA. He was directed at 0400 hrs by the SHA I/c to perform duties at X-BIS No.17 (ATRS) and he performed frisking duty from 0400 hrs to 0430 hrs. At about 0600 hrs he refused to relieve SI/Exe P.D. Bunkar who was deployed at frisking booth and also refused to open another frisking booth even after ordered by the SHA I/c. The above said act on the part of No.130404158 ASI/Exe Santhosh Kumar Mahavar of ‘C’ Coy amounts to gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and disobedience of lawful orders. Hence the charge.” Charge memo against the petitioner was issued under Rule 37 of the 2001 Rules. Hence the charge.” Charge memo against the petitioner was issued under Rule 37 of the 2001 Rules. Rule 37 of the Rules provides procedure for imposition of minor penalty, which reads as follows: “Sec-37 Procedure for imposing minor penalties - (1) No order imposing any of minor penalties specified in rule 34 shall be made except after – (a) informing the enrolled member in writing of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he wishes to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires, in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (22) of rule 36; (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the enrolled member under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; and (d) recording the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) to (22) of Rule 36 before making any order imposing on the enrolled member of the Force any such penalty. (3) The records of the proceedings in such cases shall include – (i) a copy of the intimation to the enrolled member so charged of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the enquiry, if any; (v) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vi) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.” While imposing minor penalty the delinquent official shall be informed in writing the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, based on which enquiry and punishment is proposed, affording opportunity to submit his reply. On receipt of such reply/representation, the disciplinary authority to hold enquiry if it desires in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (31) of Rule 37 of the 2001 Rules, or consider the representation submitted by such enrolled member and record findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. Depending on the nature of charge and reply, if the Disciplinary Authority opines it could hold enquiry or else it could proceed to record finding based on the reply. The petitioner on receipt of charge memo had sought certain documents by his letter dated 18.06.2017 (Annexure-R3) and the 4th Respondent under covering letter dated 24.06.2017 (Annexure-R4) supplied to the petitioner the documents, which the petitioner had sought. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply/representation dated 06.07.2017 to the charge memo. The Disciplinary Authority considering the representation of the petitioner as required under Rule 37 of the 2001 Rules imposed minor punishment of fine equivalent to 3 days pay. As the Disciplinary Authority has followed the procedure prescribed for imposition of minor penalty, I do not find any procedural irregularity/illegality in the enquiry held against the petitioner for imposition of minor penalty. 7. The contention of the petitioner that Sri U.P. Singh was the complainant and he had passed the final order is misplaced one. Annexure-R1 placed on record would indicate that In-charge of the Control Room, CISF, ASG BIA, Bangalore, reported disobedience of the petitioner to the Deputy Commandant. Thereafter, Annexure-R2 charge memo was issued and punishment was imposed under final order dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure-A) by following Rule 37 of the 2001 Rules, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. Sri U.P. Singh is the Deputy Commandant of the unit, who is the Disciplinary Authority. 8. In the case on hand, the Disciplinary Authority based on the material on record has found the petitioner guilty of the charges, which is affirmed by both Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. This Court would not normally interfere with the finding arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, which is affirmed by the Appellate Authority, unless it is demonstrated that the Disciplinary Authority failed to follow the prescribed procedure, which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and substantial injustice. 9. The petitioner is working in CISF, which is Central Armed Police Force. The personnel of CISF are deployed in sensitive areas or high security zones to maintain security. 9. The petitioner is working in CISF, which is Central Armed Police Force. The personnel of CISF are deployed in sensitive areas or high security zones to maintain security. The CISF is expected to maintain high discipline and even a minor indiscipline or disobedience requires to be dealt with sternly. Thus, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly writ petition stands rejected.