ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the punishment imposed by the appellate authority by order dated 25/01/2013 (Annexure P/3) and subsequent appellate authority order dated 16/05/2013 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 06/11/2013 (Annexure P/1) and by such punishment withholding of one increment of pay for a period of one year which will have the effect in postponing his future increment of pay by Sr. Commandant, CISF, ASG NSCBIA, Kolkata. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in CISF and was posted in CISF SV Airport Raipur. The petitioner Rajneesh Kumar Singh was deployed for B shift duty from 13.00 hrs to 21 hrs. on 12/10/2012 at X-BIS in SHA as a screener. The allegation was that he failed to detect and remove knife of Size 4 inches blade with 3.5 inches handle kept in the baggage of a passenger namely H.S. Mishra, who was traveling by the Jet Airways Flight No.S-2-4222 from Raipur to Delhi knowing fully well that it was a prohibited item. During the enquiry according to the respondent despite the clear evidence, the misconduct was held to be not proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority disagree with such finding of enquiry officer sent a note of disagreement on 24/12/2012 by Annexure P/7 and recorded a finding that the knife was seized from the passenger on board by crew member and deposited with the Jet Airways security at New Delhi Airport. An image of a bag containing a knife was found in the stored image of the X-BIS during the login ID of the charged official i.e. the petitioner. Consequently, the disagreement was arrived at. 3. The petitioner was given opportunity to prefer the response against the report of the Enquiry Officer. Though the reply was given but it was not satisfactory, consequently the punishment of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of one year which will have the effect in postponing his future increment of pay was ordered. 4. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 25/02/2013, which was rejected by the order dated 16/05/2013 and subsequently, the revision petition dated 17/07/2013 was also rejected. Being aggrieved by such order, the present petition has been preferred. 5. 4. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 25/02/2013, which was rejected by the order dated 16/05/2013 and subsequently, the revision petition dated 17/07/2013 was also rejected. Being aggrieved by such order, the present petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the X-ray image which was said to be of the Bag, which was scanned by the petitioner has not been co-related that it was the same bag which contained the knife and there are discrepancies unless it is fully proved that the same bag was containing knife which was scanned by the petitioner, the charges cannot be brought home. He would further submit that after going through the statement of the witnesses it appears that the statements are vague. In order to prove the fact that the bag which was containing a knife was scanned by the petitioner should be proved by establishing the nexus with alleged image, however, in this case the alleged flight from Raipur to Delhi had already airborne on 16.50 hrs. whereas the image of the bag which contained the knife was obtained on 07.40 pm, therefore, there is discrepancy and possibility cannot be denied that the other persons were also part of screening process. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be alone held liable. He would further submit that the knife whether was recovered from the person or the bag it is also not clear and in absence of such evidence, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was well merited which should not have been interfered by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, in this case after the charge-sheet was filed that the petitioner as a screener failed to notice a knife in a hand bag of a passenger, who was traveling from Raipur to Delhi, the Enquiry Officer found it not proved but the disciplinary authority did not agree to such finding. 8. Rule 36 (21) (ii) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2001) gives the power of disciplinary authority to disagree with the finding, which is as under:- “36. 8. Rule 36 (21) (ii) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2001) gives the power of disciplinary authority to disagree with the finding, which is as under:- “36. Procedure for imposing major penalties.- xxx xxx xxx 21 (ii) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.” 9. The disciplinary authority by its order dated 24/12/2012 (Annexure P/7) has described and following reasons were assigned which are reproduced hereinbelow:- The undersigned being disciplinary authority have gone through the report of Enquiry Officer and also have meticulously gone through all the materials placed before me I do not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and find that on appreciation of the evidences adduced during the course of enquiry the following emerges. (i) The Charged Official was deployed for 'B' Shift from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs on 12.10.2012 at X-BIS in the SHA of ASG Raipur as per PW-1. Exh-1. (ii) Shri H.S. Mishra (Pax) travelled by Jet Airways Flight S2-4222 from Raipur to Delhi on 12.10.2012. This emerges from PW-3, Exh. -4. PW-3, Exh. 5. (iii) From the statement of Station Manager Shri E. Barretto, P.W. 3 it is seen that a knife (4" Blade and 3.5" Handle) was recovered from Shri H.S. Mishra who was travelling from Raipur to Delhi in the flight No. S2-4222. The knife was seized on board of the said flight from his possession by the crew member and later on deposited with Jet Airways security at Delhi Airport. He informed this matter to the CISF at Raipur Airport and also sent the image of which has been established by PW-3. (iv) As per system to vogue, a certified screener scans the hand baggage with the help of X-BIS Every Screener has a Log-in ID when he logs into the X-BIS and operates it. (v) From the Prosecution exhibit No. 6 vide which image of X-BIS machine has been produced by PW-2 Insp/Exe M.K. Kar, it is seen that the said image is of the period when the charged official had logged into the X-BIS. (v) From the Prosecution exhibit No. 6 vide which image of X-BIS machine has been produced by PW-2 Insp/Exe M.K. Kar, it is seen that the said image is of the period when the charged official had logged into the X-BIS. (vi) The EO in his report has noted that the timing shown on X-BIS image was 1940.48. This question was put up specifically to PW-2 by the charged official as Question No. 1 (Cross examination of PW-2 by CO) and it was clarified by PW-2 that the clock of X-BIS was not correct and not adjusted. (vii) Further, the Pax has spoken to Asstt. Commandant A.K. Pandey and stated that his baggage tag contains Stamp No.3 as per the statement of PW-2 and the Co was also issued with stamp No. 3 as per prosecution exhibit listed document. (viii) It is also a fact that the Charged Official was BCAS certified screener and was fully aware about the security procedures. This has been clarified by charged official while replying to Question No.01 put forth by Enquiry Officer to Charged Official. 10. Against such disagreement the petitioner was given the opportunity of hearing and he filed his reply but that reply was also not considered to be sufficient. The submission of the petitioner that it has not been clearly proved that the bag which was scanned contained a knife screened by the petitioner have a different time cannot be so meticulously considered for the reason that the login ID and the image of the bag which contained the knife was in sole control of the petitioner, therefore, if the image subsequently taken and it shows a different time of taking out the image, it cannot be stated that the image contained a different time line and the allegation cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The fact remains that the passenger was found with a knife on board which was seized by the crew member and was handed over at New Delhi Airport, the petitioner was on duty from from 13.00 hrs to 21 hrs in between the said flight took off from Raipur. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Dalbir Singh { (2021) 11 SCC 321 } has held that in a case of departmental proceeding the burden of proof is not akin to like a criminal case. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Dalbir Singh { (2021) 11 SCC 321 } has held that in a case of departmental proceeding the burden of proof is not akin to like a criminal case. The Supreme Court in para 24 has held thus:- 24. This Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1020 held that the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. It was held as under : (SCC p. 776, para 11) “11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order [Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 59] dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 12. In the instant case applying the aforesaid principle over the finding which has been arrived at by the disciplinary authority in its exercise of power under Rule 36 (21) (ii) of the Rules, 2001 the finding which has been recorded appears to be reasonable as in the aviation sector as has been stated that it is a zero mistake job, therefore, no further indulgences can be given by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.