ORDER : (Rajani Dubey, J.) 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure P/2) whereby, the penalty of withholding of one annual increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner & the appeal and revision preferred against the order dated 01.05.2013 were also dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2013 (Annexure P/3) and order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P/4), respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable under the respondent No.2 and was posted at 3rd Reserved Battalion, C.I.S.F. Internal Security at Rajhara Mines Bhilai Dist, Durg. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 30.3.2013 in between 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm when he was on duty with arms and ammunition, at the relevant time, the camp In-charge while on inspection found the petitioner not vigilant on his work and found sitting on chair without any arms and ammunition and the were kept on table inside the room. This apart, on 30.03.2013 at evening, when the roll call parade was called, the petitioner was not present and misbehaved with the Camp Manger which comes under the purview of misconduct. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner, to which, the petitioner duly reply and pleaded his innocence stating that all the charges/allegation leveled against him were false and frivolous as he did not commit any negligent during his duty time nor misbehaved with any of his superior authority. The disciplinary officer after going through the reply filed by the petitioner arrived at conclusion that the act of the petitioner falls within the purview of misconduct and awarded with punishment of withholding of one year increment without cumulative effect for two years. Being aggrieved with the order of withholding of increment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commandant, who in turn, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter, an revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of C.I.S.F. and the Deputy Inspector General after going through the merits of case dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an mercy appeal before the Director General C.I.S.F. which too was dismissed on the ground that no second appeal is maintainable. Thereafter, an revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of C.I.S.F. and the Deputy Inspector General after going through the merits of case dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an mercy appeal before the Director General C.I.S.F. which too was dismissed on the ground that no second appeal is maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the Director General C.I.S.F. New Delhi regarding personal appearance before him, however, the said application was returned back with an endorsement that he has to make a detail representation before the commandant and then move an application before the Director General. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission from the senior commandant to raise his dispute before the Hon'ble court. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective as he has not committed any negligent in his duty nor misbehaved with any of his senior officer but has been falsely implicated in the said charges. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been unblemished service record, which has been completely ignored by the respondent authorities while imposing the said punishment. The action of the respondent authorities are against the well settled principles of law and against the provision of Constitution of India and the impugned order is against the service jurisprudence. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Ankur Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 1744. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order submits that all the orders have been passed after considering the defence version of the petitioner by speaking orders, thus the orders passed by the respondents are without any prejudice and within the purview of principle of the natural justice. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing by serving charge sheet vide memo dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure P/1) against which, the petitioner submitted his representation on 22.04.2013 and denied the charges levelled against him. The respondent No.5 considered the representation of the petitioner and thereafter, passed the order dated 01.05.2013 imposing a minor penalty. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing by serving charge sheet vide memo dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure P/1) against which, the petitioner submitted his representation on 22.04.2013 and denied the charges levelled against him. The respondent No.5 considered the representation of the petitioner and thereafter, passed the order dated 01.05.2013 imposing a minor penalty. The petitioner himself admitted the charges levelled against him and assigned reason why he did not perform duties in an discipline manner. The petitioner being the member of strict discipline force was bound to comply the duty assigned to him strictly following the discipline imposed to him else the delinquent is liable to be face the disciplinary measures. The petitioner failed to comply with the orders of higher authorities and in an indiscipline manner, misbehaved with higher officer. Thus, the instant petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was a regular employee of CISF and posted at 3rd Reserve Battalion, CISF, Rajhara Mines, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) on the post of Head Constable. It is not disputed that the respondent No.5, vide order dated 11.04.2013 issued charge sheet to the petitioner with a condition to reply it within seven days. The petitioner replied to this letter dated 11.04.2013 denying the charges and the respondent No.5 (disciplinary officer) passed the impugned order (Annexure P/2) of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner against the said order (Annexure P/2), preferred an appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 21.06.2013 (Annexure P/3), dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and the revision petition preferred against dismissal of appeal too was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P/4). 7. The charge against the petitioner was that he was not vigilant during his duty and was absent during counting/parade. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after issuing show cause notice and after replying to the show cause notice, the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any proper departmental enquiry, therefore, the impugned order hit by principle of natural justice. 8. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after issuing show cause notice and after replying to the show cause notice, the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any proper departmental enquiry, therefore, the impugned order hit by principle of natural justice. 8. This Court, while dealing with the issue where without conducting proper departmental enquiry punishment was imposed against the delinquent employee, observed in Ankur Pratap (supra) in paras 8, 9 and 10 as under :- “8. Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 provides as under:- "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." 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra) held in para 4 as under:- "4. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find It not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with. "10. The High Court of Madras in the matter of N. Subramanian (supra) held in paras 11 & 12 as under: - "11. In fact a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in W.P. No. 21954 of 2004 dated 11.12.2006 (Jamil Akhtar v. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Industrial Security Force, 6th Reserve Batallion, Arakkonam) has also quashed the impugned order of punishment on the ground of non holding of enquiry in spite of a specific request made by the employee in that regard. 12. In our considered view, an enquiry is contemplated in case where a delinquent refutes the charge and by such refutal, the employer is duty bound to prove the charge levelled against the delinquent by letting in evidence. This is more so when the delinquent employee seeks for such an enquiry in his explanation as well." 9. 12. In our considered view, an enquiry is contemplated in case where a delinquent refutes the charge and by such refutal, the employer is duty bound to prove the charge levelled against the delinquent by letting in evidence. This is more so when the delinquent employee seeks for such an enquiry in his explanation as well." 9. In the light of above discussion and the judgment referred herein above, it transpires from the record that before imposing penalty upon the petitioner, neither proper opportunity of hearing was given nor proper enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority having considered only reply of the petitioner passed the impugned order dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure P/2). That apart, the appellate authority as also the revisional authority did not consider this significant factual aspect of the matter and rejected the plea of the petitioner holding that orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are reasoned and speaking orders. It is apparent that no document or list of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner and no preliminary enquiry or departmental enquiry, as the case may be, was conducted against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority without affording proper opportunity of hearing straightway passed the punishment order of imposing penalty of withholding one annual increment for two years without cumulative effect. Thus, it is clear that all these proceedings are against the principle of natural justice, as such the impugned orders are not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure P/2), 21.06.2013 (Annexure P/3) and 12.09.2013 (Annexure P/4) are hereby set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed ahead, if they so desire, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the relevant documents. 10. The writ petition thus stands allowed.