JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in his Order No.V-11014/56/2014/L&R-1039, dated 27.10.2014 confirming the order of the third respondent in his Order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/App/ SNR/2013/243, dated 28.11.2013 enhancing the order of the fourth respondent in his Order No.V-15015/06/2013/L&R(SZ)/5777, dated 05.08.2013 and the order of the fifth respondent in his final Order No.V-15014/CISF/GHC/MAJ/AD.V/NMPT/SNR/2013/942, dated 18.02.2013, quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all benefits.) 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of punishment. 2. The writ petitioner joined as Constable on 19.06.2000 in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and served for about 14 years. While the petitioner was working at Central Industrial Security Force Unit NMPT, Mangalore, a charge memorandum under Section 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF Rules, 2001', in short] was issued in proceedings dated 01.12.2012, framing the following article of charge:- “ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I That No.001480285 Constable Sarepaka Nageswara Rao of CISF Unit NMPT-Mangalore exhibited gross misconduct and serious act of indiscipline in that while he was performing 'C' shift duty from 2100 hrs on 10.11.2012 to 0500 hrs on 11.11.2012 at Delta-II (Atul) marine patrolling boat with arms and ammunitions, consumed alcohol in the boat along with No.064840066 Constable Jitendra Singh Parmar who has been deployed for duty along with him in the same boat, at about 2320 hrs on 10.11.2012 and he misbehaved, abused and threatened the crew members of Delta-II (Atul) patrolling boat under the influence of alcohol. This act on the part of No.001480285 Constable Sarepaka Nageswara Rao of CISF Unit, NMPT-Mangalore tantamount to gross misbehaviour in violation of standing orders for boat patrolling, indiscipline, dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming of the member of an Armed Force Union.” 3. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn conducted an enquiry by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges are proved against the writ petitioner. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn conducted an enquiry by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges are proved against the writ petitioner. Based on the proved charges, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of withholding one of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The period of suspension was also regularised by the order of the fifth respondent dated 01.05.2013. 4. Thereafter the fourth respondent/Deputy Inspector General issued a show cause noice on 11.07.2012. The show cause notice states that the proved charges of consumption of liquor while on duty was a serious misconduct and there is absolutely no room for such personnel in any Armed Force. It states that the charged official has consumed alcohol while on boat patrolling duty on the sea with arms and ammunitions and therefore, it becomes a very serious misconduct. Although the Boat Master became hostile during regular enquiry, it is on record that he had initially deposed that the charged official had threatened him by pointing the rifle towards him when he declined to move the boat due to rain and the introxicated condition of the charged official and Constable J.S.Parmar. Therefore, the act committed by the charged official is one of the serious offences deserving stringent punishment, but the Disciplinary Authority had taken a lenient view and awarded penalty of withholding of one year increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Therefore, the Apellate Authority proposed to enhance the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18.02.2013 to that of removal from service to meet the ends of justice. 5. The writ petitioner submitted his objections with reference to the show cause notice as well as for the reasons stated in the show cause notice. The Appellate Authority considered the explanations and passed the final orders in proceedings dated 05.08.2013, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by the minimum stage for a period of five years with further direction that during the period of reduction he will not earn increment and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 6. 6. The appeal petition filed by the writ petitioner was also rejected by the third respondent on 28.11.2013. Thus the petitioner filed a revision petition on 09.05.2014. The Revisional Authority also considered the facts and circumstances and confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority in proceedings dated 27.10.2014. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding one of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. There is no sufficient reason for enhancing the punishment. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority miserably failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was not sent for blodd test to confirm the drunkenness. In the absence of any such blood test and medical examination, the charge cannot be held proved. 8. The drunkenness certificate produced by the Presenting Officer would be insufficient to form an opinion that the petitioner was in drunkenness mood. That apart, the Boat Master turned hostile during the enquiry, which was also not taken into consideration by the respondents. Though the Appellate Authority formed an opinion that the petitioner has acted indifferently against the Boat Master during the occurrence of the incident. There is no evidence made available for any such conduct of the writ petitioner threatening the Boat Master Mr.Prassant Naga. No such misbehaviour or threatening was established before the Enquiry Officer and during the course of enquiry, the Boat Master deposed that no such incident had occurred. While-so, there is no reason to form an opinion that the charges are proved against the writ petitioner. 9. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report, imposed the punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect and the Appellate Authority found it disproportionate as the gravity of the proved charges are grave in nature. Thus, the Appellate Authority issued the show cause notice, which is well within its power under the Rules and after affording an opportunity to the charged official, the Appellate Authority enhanced the punishment to that of one reduction of pay by minimum stage for a period of five years with further direction that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increment and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. The said punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority was confirmed by the Revisional Authority. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved. Thus, there is no dispute with reference to the misconduct committed by the peititioner. The quantum of punishment alone was modified by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the proved allegations are serious in nature occurred on the sea and a stringent punishment is required and after taking such a decision, issued the show cause notice and modified the punishment. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that charge memorandum was issued under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The process of enquiry was conducted after affording an opportunity to the delinquent official. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report and its finding and by following the procedures, imposed the punishment. The Appellate Authority found that the said punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was inadequate and the Disciplinary Authority had taken a lenient view in respect of the grave misconduct proved against the writ petitioner. Thus the Appellate Authority issued the show cause notice under the Rules and after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner enhanced the punishment. The Revisional Authority confirmed the said punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority. Thus the procedures as contemplated under the CISF Rules were followed by the respondents by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner on every stage. There is no procedural irregularity in the matter of iniation of disposal of the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner. Thus the question arises whether the punishment is disproportionate to the allegations proved against the writ petitioner. 11. There is no procedural irregularity in the matter of iniation of disposal of the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner. Thus the question arises whether the punishment is disproportionate to the allegations proved against the writ petitioner. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Disciplinary Authority and the Revisional Authority accepted the enquiry report, which reveals that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. However, with reference to the quantum of punishment, the Appellate Authority formed an opinion that the Disciplinary Authority has taken a lenient view in respect of the serious allegations proved against the writ petitioner. The reason to form such an opinion is well enumerated in the show cause notice dated 11.07.2012. The reason stated is that the charged official had consumed alcohol while on boat patrolling duty on the sea with arms and ammunitions, which is the serious misconduct. Although the Boat Master became hostile during the regular enquiry, it is on record that he had initially deposed that the charged official had thretened him. Under those circumstances, the Appellate Authority arrived a conclusion that the act committed by the charged official is one of the serious offences deserving stringent punishment, but the Disciplinary Authority had taken a lenient view. 12. Pertinently, the show cause notice stipulates that the punishment of removal from service to meet the ends of justice. However, on receipt of explanation from the writ petitioner and considering the materials available on record, the Appellate Authority has not imposed the penalty of removal from service. In lieu, imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by minimum stage for a period of five years with further reduction that during the period he will not earn increment and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. 13. Thus, the Appellate Authority had considered the materials available on record and applied its mind. Though the Appellate Authority formed an opinion that the punishment of removal from service would be appropriate with reference to the proved charges. On receipt of explanation from the writ petitioner, changed its mind and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by minimum stage for a period of five years with cumulative effect. 14. Though the Appellate Authority formed an opinion that the punishment of removal from service would be appropriate with reference to the proved charges. On receipt of explanation from the writ petitioner, changed its mind and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by minimum stage for a period of five years with cumulative effect. 14. Therefore, this Court has no reason to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner that the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind or failed to consider the objections raised by the writ petitioner and absolutely, there is no reason to believe such statements made by the petitioner, as the reasonings recorded in the show cause notice and in the appellate order, are candid and convincing. The decision taken by the Appellate Authority is to be construed as an impartial decision taken based on the materials available on record. This Court is unable to see even any prejudice in the matter of considering the documents and evidences. 15. This being the factum, absolutely there is no reason whatsoever to reconsider the decision taken by the Appellate Authority, which was confirmed by the Revisional Authority, which is in consonance with the CISF Rules, 2001 and in accordance with the established principles. Thus, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.