JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/Rev/PRK/2014-10537 dated 27.09.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Order No.V-11014/25/2006/L&R(SZ) 6319 dated 09.11.2006 modifying the order passed by the 4th respondent in his final order No.V-15014/GHC/AD.VI/PRK/CPCL/2005/121 dated 12.01.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondent to grant all consequential benefits.) 1. The modified punishment of “Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect” imposed on the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Constable. He was on deputation with Delhi Police and thereafter, transferred to CISF Unit, CPCL Manali in proceedings dated 09.11.2002. He was relieved on 12.07.2004 and did not report to CISF Unit CPCL Manali on being relieved by the Delhi Police. The respondents sent call up letter to his home address in letters dated 13.01.2005 and on 22.01.2005 and further on 05.02.2005 with a direction to report back to unit. However, the petitioner on his own reported at CISF Hqrs New Delhi on 03.06.2005 and he was relieved on 06.06.2005 with directions to report to CISF Unit CPCL Manali. 3. Regarding the overstayal of the writ petitioner, a charge memorandum in proceedings dated 27.09.2005 under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules was issued by the Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, CPCL Manali and the following charges are framed: ARTICLE OF CHARGE – I That No.884657266 Constable P.R.Kumawat of CISF Unit CPCL Manali Chennai overstayed in joining time for 325 days from 12.07.2004 to 02.06.2005 unauthorisedly without any permission/intimation from the competent authority. Hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE – II That No.884657266 Constable P.R.Kumawat of CISF Unit CPCL Manali Chennai was sent 3 call-up notices to his leave/home address directing him to report for duty immediately, but he failed to report for duty by disobeying the lawful orders. Hence the charge. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. Hence the charge. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and the Enquiry Officer finally submitted a report, holding that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The Enquiry Report was communicated to the writ petitioner, enabling him to submit further objections on the findings. On receipt of the further representation against the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction in pay to the minimum stage of Rs.3050/- in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with immediate effect. It is further directed that the petitioner will not earn any increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 5. Challenging the said punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner submitted an appeal on 17.02.2006 to the Appellate Authority i.e., Deputy Inspector General CISF South Zone Hqrs, Chennai. The Appellate Authority considered the grounds raised by the writ petitioner and found that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly awarded the penalty to the petitioner for his willful absence from duty, which was proved in the enquiry. However, considering the fact that the petitioner had put in more than 17 years of service, the Appellate Authority modified the penalty awarded to the writ petitioner as 'Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect' in proceedings dated 09.11.2006. Again, the petitioner preferred a revision petition on 07.07.2008 and the revisional authority confirmed the modified punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority in proceedings dated 30.09.2008. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was ill during the relevant point of time and he was not in a position to report for duty. Thus, his overstayal from 12.07.2004 to 02.06.2005 i.e., 325 days is without any intention. However, he subsequently joined for duty on 03.06.2005. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was ill during the relevant point of time and he was not in a position to report for duty. Thus, his overstayal from 12.07.2004 to 02.06.2005 i.e., 325 days is without any intention. However, he subsequently joined for duty on 03.06.2005. 7. The petitioner in his explanation, has stated that he was slipped down from stair case on 12.07.2004 at night due to which the petitioner sustained injury at the back and knee and had severe pain in his back. The petitioner took treatment at CGHS, Delhi and the same was informed telephonically regularly to the Control Room of 8th BN DAP. While under treatment, the petitioner was affected jaundice due to which the petitioner became weak. The petitioner was under continuous treatment and under medical rest upto 02.06.2005.. The petitioner informed his medical rest/treatment to 8th Bn, Delhi Police after declared him fit. Thus, the petitioner further reported at CISF HQ CGO Complex, New Delhi on 03.06.2005. 8. Therefore, the petitioner remained absent on certain genuine circumstances on account of his ill-health and there was no intention on his part to remain absent unauthorizedly. It is further contended that the members of the family of the writ petitioner are illiterate and they had not received any call up letters in his absence. The petitioner came to know about the call up letters only after reporting duty at CISF Headquarters at New Delhi. 9. The learned Central Government Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that all the factual aspects as narrated by the petitioners and its genuinity were verified during the departmental enquiry. The narration of facts by the petitioner that he was not well for about 325 days was carefully scrutinized by the Enquiry officer and subsequently, by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. In this regard, the respondents have stated that the petitioner was relieved from deputation on 12.07.2004. It was the duty of the petitioner to inform his parent department about his sickness, if being so, when he was already relieved from the borrowing department. The petitioner neither reported to his parent Department/unit nor given any intimation and overstayed his joining time for the reasons best known to him under the cover of his sickness. It was the duty of the petitioner to inform his parent department about his sickness, if being so, when he was already relieved from the borrowing department. The petitioner neither reported to his parent Department/unit nor given any intimation and overstayed his joining time for the reasons best known to him under the cover of his sickness. He voluntarily joined as CISF Hqrs New Delhi on 03.06.2005 and was relieved on 06.06.2005 from FHQrs to report to CPCL Manali. This shows that the petitioner had intentionally overstayed joining time for a period of 325 days without proper permission / reason. He never informed his parent department about his sickness. The medical papers submitted by the petitioner during the course of enquiry were only medical unfitness certificates issued by different doctors at different dates and prescriptions. The medical certificates have contradictions with the prescriptions with regard to grant of sick rest by the doctors. The petitioner had not submitted any scanning report / x-ray report and cash memo in support of his back ache & procurement of medicines for recovery from sickness. The irony is that he was on prolonged sickness for nearly 325 days but he was neither referred to any specialist nor the petitioner took interest to see any specialist for his speedy recovery. 10. Therefore, the authorities competent had carefully scrutinized the medical certificates produced by the writ petitioner and its genuinity. The authorities found that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner are contradictory and the same would not be sufficient to form an opinion that the petitioner was continuously sick for about 325 days. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that the procedures as contemplated under the CISF Rules were scrupulously followed by the Disciplinary Authority for conducting the departmental disciplinary proceedings. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that the procedures as contemplated under the CISF Rules were scrupulously followed by the Disciplinary Authority for conducting the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The documents and evidences produced by the writ petitioner to establish his sickness for 325 days was also considered by the Enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority Finally, they formed an opinion that the petitioner intentionally overstayed for 325 days and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum stage of Rs.3050/- in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with immediate effect and the petitioner will not earn any increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 12. The Appellate Authority modified the punishment and reduced the same as “Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect”. The said punishment was confirmed by the Revisional Authority. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had independently considered the facts and the materials available on record. Therefore, it became unnecessary for this Court to reconsider the factual findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The finding of fact reveals that the petitioner overstayed for 325 days intentionally. The documents and evidences produced by the petitioner were found to be insufficient to arrive a conclusion that his overstayal was unintentional. Thus, the authorities arrived a conclusion and imposed the punishment. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was further reduced by the Appellate Authority, taking into consideration the length of service rendered by the petitioner. When the Appellate Authority found that the petitioner had served for about 17 years and he has not suffered any previous punishment, reduced the punishment and therefore, this Court is of an opinion that further interference became unnecessary. 13. As far as the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, the same cannot be construed as excessive. Even the Disciplinary Authority has considered the length of service of the writ petitioner and imposed the punishment. The Appellate Authority further modified and reduced the punishment as that one of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Even the Disciplinary Authority has considered the length of service of the writ petitioner and imposed the punishment. The Appellate Authority further modified and reduced the punishment as that one of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Thus, no further consideration with regard to the quantum of punishment needs to be undertaken. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that there is no perversity or infirmity in respect of the orders passed by the respondents and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.