WP(C) 486/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR Disciplinary proceedings were held against the petitioner for failure to attend morning parade, morning musketry parade and evening musketry parade on 10/5/2004 , 19/5/2004 and 20/5/2004 respectively. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner wrote to the respondents, more particularly the Assistant Commandant of the Unit for supplying him the me morandum of charges in Hindi as he has a problem in submitting a reply to the al legations made against him in English. In response, the petitioner was informed that he has studied upto 10th Class in which English was one of the subjects and he had qualified in that subject and s o he should submit his reply to the allegations made against him in English. The petitioner failed to submit any reply but insisted on supply of the charge shee t in Hindi. It was also brought to the notice of the petitioner by a letter dated 21/6/2004 that in an earlier disciplinary case, he had corresponded with the respondents i n English. He had also given an application for GPF advance and for leave in Eng lish. As such the demand for supplying the allegations in Hindi was a delaying t actic. Since the petitioner failed to submit any satisfactory explanation for his absen ce, the order dated 18/19th August, 2004 was passed imposing on the petitioner a fine of an amount equivalent to seven days pay. The petitioner was given an opportunity of making an appeal against the impositi on of the fine. Instead of availing the departmental appeal, the present writ pe tition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner on earlier occasions had corresponded with the re spondents in English. Quite clearly, the insistence on being served with the all egations in Hindi was only a delaying tactic. It may be mentioned that the petitioner was not in custody and certainly he coul d have taken the assistance of his next friend to explain the charges to him eve n if he was not conversant with English. In addition, I find that the writ petition has been drafted in English and the a ffidavit has also been signed by the petitioner in English. He has sworn an affi davit that the contents of the writ petition are true to the best of his knowled ge. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner is totally ignorant in English. He seems to be conversant enough in English and, no doubt, was in a position to un derstand the allegations against him. On merits, the petitioner has not given any defence for his inability to appear in the parade on the dates mentioned above. The imposition of the punishment of fine equivalent to seven days pay is not disproportionate to the nature of the o ffence considering the fact that the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force. There is no merit petition and it is dismissed.