IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9663 of 2009 Ved Prakash, Son of Hasiar Singh, resident of village-Rohwa, P.S.-Khar Khada, District-Sonepat, Haryana. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home Affair, New Delhi. 2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Block-13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi. 3. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Sector Hqrs., Boring Road, Patliputra, Patna (Bihar). 4. Dy. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Sector Hqrs., Boring Road, Patliputra, Patna (Bihar). 5. Commandant CISF DM, Battalion, Mundali, Orissa. 6. Assistant Commandant, CISF DM, Battalion, Mundali, Orissa. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvdeo Singh. ------------- 02 13.08.2009 Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition. The petitioner was a constable in Central Industrial Security Force and has been in service since 1993. While posted at Mandali in the State of Orissa a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on two charges. First being unauthorized absence from the battalion headquarters between 3 PM to 7 PM when he was required to be present for certain meeting. Second charge was that during his absence in that period he had gone to a near by village Govindpur got drunk and tried to solicitate ladies by showing money and other force to have sexually intercourse. These charges were found by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority and all have consistently awarded punishment of dismissal for this dereliction. Mr. Singh submits that so far as charge no.2 is concerned, it - 2 - was not proved because not only the victim lady did not press the charge and no villager appeared in course of enquiry to support the charge. In that view of the mater, the only charge that was left was his absence from the camp for about 5 hours. Thus, for this one time dereliction the punishment is too severe, excessive and disproportionate. Having considered the matter, in my view, learned Senior counsel rightly did not press that the proceeding or the finding that the charge was established was wrong in fact or in law. Mr. Singh brought to the notice of this Court various findings including the finding that the villagers did not come forward to substantiate the charge nor did the lady submit her for being examined. He has also drawn my attention to the statement filed by the lady in the proceedings that she had made a complaint under some misapprehension of fact. Be that as it may, as the findings in fact or in law are not being challenged, this Court cannot go into those issues. Examining the word on the book it stands out that in fact virtually only one charge was proved that is unauthorized absence for 5 hours, wherein petitioner was found in a village in a drunken condition. Having considered the matter, such dereliction by a uniformed officer has to be dealt with seriously but how seriously is the question. Mr. Singh, points out that in about 13 years of service there is not a spot in petitioner’s career and for this one dereliction he is being visited with the extreme punishment of dismissal from service that in my view may be correct. The punishment apparently appears to be too severe and - 3 - disproportionate and calls for interference. Between the minor punishment of warning and dismissal various other options are available to the authority. In my view, it was a fit case in which they ought to have considered some other punishment apart from the extreme punishment dismissal from service out right. In that view of the matter, I remanded the matter to the Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force, who was the Reviewing Authority, for limited purpose of reconsidering the aspect of punishment, such consideration must be done within one month of petitioner filing a copy of order of this Court along with requisite application in that regards. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)