JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 11.01.2012 in his order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/Rev/AK/2011-22, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in his order No.V-11014/155/Anu/SZ/2011/8246 dated 21.10.2011 and confirming the order of the 4th respondent dated in his final order No.V-15014/CISF/VPT/ DISC/HNRK/11/1756 dated 5.9.2011 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits namely Promotion, ACP etc to the petitioner.) 1. The punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect awarded by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit VPT Vizag/Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate order and also the Revision order passed by the competent authorities are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner joined as Constable in the year 1989 in the CISF and was promoted as Head Constable. He was placed under suspension on 27.04.2011 by the 4th respondent under Rule 33 (1) (a) of the CISF Rule on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated. The Memorandum under Rule-36 of the CISF Rules was issued by the 4th respondent on 07.05.2011 and the charge against the writ petitioner reads as under: ARTICLE OF CHARGE That CISF No.891401638 HC/GD, H.N. Ravi Kumar (U/S) of “C” Sector of CISF Unit VPT Visakhapatnam while on-Day-Shift duty from 0500 hrs to 1700 hrs on 27.04.2011 at WOB Gate along with No.722300071 SI/Exe R.C.Swain, No.074480641 Constable R.R. Bhai and No.894652622 Constable G.Kavirajan indulged in corrupt act of collecting 02 Nos.of cold-drinks cans (Fen Groovy Grape) which were found kept in his hand bag when checked by CISF South Zone Hqrs, Chennai surprise checking team on 27.04.2011 at 1615 hours. This act amounts to dishonesty, violation of order of superior authority and gross misconduct which is unbecoming of a member of disciplined Force like CISF”. 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charges as false. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and based on the materials available on record, the Enquiry Officer arrived a conclusion and held that the charge against the writ petitioner is proved. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and based on the materials available on record, the Enquiry Officer arrived a conclusion and held that the charge against the writ petitioner is proved. The enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who in turn, imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect in proceedings dated 05.09.2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent and the said appeal was rejected. The Revision filed before the 2nd respondent was also rejected on 11.01.2012. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that keeping two Cool drink bottles in the hand bag is not amounting to receiving illegal gratification. But the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner without even considering the fact that the other CISF officers were also in possession of the Cool drink bottles. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that two Cool drink bottles were taken by the petitioner for drinking with the consent of Gate incharges. However, the 4th respondent has not considered the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner in this regard and awarded the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that keeping two Cool drink bottles cannot be construed as an illegal gratification and it was kept by the petitioner for his own use and the explanation to that effect submitted by the petitioner was not considered. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the writ petitioner was detailed in “Day” shift duty from 0500 hours to 1700 hrs on 27.04.2011 at WOB Gate along with SI/Exe R.C.Swain, Constable G.Kavirajan and Constable R.R.Bhai. On 27.04.2011 at about 1615 hours, surprise checking was conducted by a team of CISF SZ Hqrs., Chennai, consisting Insp/Exe C.G.Pandi, ASI/Exe J.Kennady, ASI/Exe D.Palani, Constable P.Manickam and Constable S.J.Edison at WOB gate. On 27.04.2011 at about 1615 hours, surprise checking was conducted by a team of CISF SZ Hqrs., Chennai, consisting Insp/Exe C.G.Pandi, ASI/Exe J.Kennady, ASI/Exe D.Palani, Constable P.Manickam and Constable S.J.Edison at WOB gate. During their surprise checking, nothing was found from the possession of duty personnel except the money declared by them i.e., less than Rs.20/-, but on searching the hand bag of duty personnel, which were kept inside the gumty of WOB Gate, 01 cool drink bottle (Thums up), 02 Nos.of Cool drink cans (Ugarit Cola) and 02 packets of cigarette(Charms) were found in the hand bag of SI./Exe R.C.Swain, 02 Nos.of cool drinks cans (Fen Groovy Grape) were found in the hand bag of the petitioner and 01 cool drink bottle (Thums up) and 01 No.cool drink can (Ugrit Cola) were found in the hand bag of Constable R.R.Bhai. On recovery of items, a seizure memo was prepared and the recovered items were handed over to Insp/Exe D.K.Sirohi the then Coy. Commander of -C- Sector. On receipt of information, Insp/Exe R.K.Singh of CISF Unit, VPT Visakhapatnam was detailed to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry into the case. In the mean time SI/Exe R.C.Swain, HC/GD H.N. Ravi Kumar/petitioner and Constable R.R.Bhai were placed under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 27.04.2011. The Preliminary Enquiry dated 03.05.2011 revealed that the CISF Personnel detailed at WOB gate in -Day- Shift duty on 27.04.2011, accepted Cool drinks from Customs Department Staff. After receiving the PE report, the petitioner was issued with a charge memorandum under Rule-36 of CISF Rules, 2001 vide Memorandum No.V-15014/CISF/VPT/Disc.Maj/HNRK/11/854 dated 07.05.2011. 7. The procedures as contemplated under the rules were followed by the authorities. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that there is no infirmity as such in the matter of adhering to the procedures to be followed. The petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner submitted his explanation and participated in the process of enquiry. His only contention was that he kept the Cool drinks in his bag for his own consumption. However, the authorities conducted an inspection, traced out Cool drinks from the bags of three officials and all the three officials were placed under suspension and at the time of enquiry, they found that these officials accepted Cool drinks from Customs Department staff. His only contention was that he kept the Cool drinks in his bag for his own consumption. However, the authorities conducted an inspection, traced out Cool drinks from the bags of three officials and all the three officials were placed under suspension and at the time of enquiry, they found that these officials accepted Cool drinks from Customs Department staff. When the CISF Personnel on duty accepts anything from any other person without proper permission or the information from the competent authorities, is no doubt, an illegal gratification. Receiving such Cool drinks or any gift from any person is to be construed as an illegal gratification and it is a corrupt activity. Receiving of any such gift will unnecessarily create personal acquaintance with the customs officials or other staffs working in that establishment and there is a possibility of abuse or causing lapses in the security, rather, it is more dangerous to receive such Cool drinks from any other third persons, while the CISF personnel is on duty. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that it amounts to receiving of Cool drinks bottles from customs staff is an illegal gratification, is in consonance with the definition for illegal gratification and there is no error or otherwise. 8. The charges against the writ petitioner was proved and based on the proved charges, the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect was awarded by the Commandant, CISF Unit, this Court do not find any disproportionality in respect of the punishment imposed with reference to the proved charge against the writ petitioner. Further, in respect of other two CISF Personnel, SI/Exe R.C. Swain and Constable R.R.Bhai, the Disciplinary Authority had issued the punishment of reduction of pay. Therefore, the authorities competent had treated all the erred employees uniformly as there is no such discrimination in the matter of disciplinary proceedings in respect of the similarly placed delinquents. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity with reference to the punishment imposed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.