THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.917 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.10.1998 passed by the 1st respondent-Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Balco Korba, Bilaspoor, Madya Pradesh, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 22.07.1999, which was further confirmed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 18.08.2004. It appears, the 1st petitioner (since died) was appointed as a Constable in the respondent organization on 16.08.1988. He was attached to Amarkantak in CISF Unit, Balco Korba, under the control of the 1st respondent. While that being so, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 03.06.1998 enumerating the following charges: “I. An act of gross misconduct, indiscipline, wilful absence from the unit in that No.882297051 HC/Dvr C.R.Babu voluntarily withdraw himself from duty on 6.3.1998 at about 18.00 hours and continue to remain absent without any intimation or permission from the competent authority. II. An act of gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence in that No.882297951 HC/Dvr C.R.Babu while driving Jeep No.MP-26W-1437 under the influenced alcohol met with an accident resulting in the death of No.702310511 ASI/Exe M.S.Saini and injury to constable R.K.Pandey.” Thereupon, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer gave his report to the disciplinary authority-1st respondent, who after considering the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and completing the formalities, issued proceedings dated 13.10.1998, imposing the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Inspector General, East Zone, who, after considering the matter in detail, dismissed the appeal by his order dated 22.07.1999. The said order was confirmed by the revisional authority-Inspector General, by his order dated 18.08.2004. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. As per the charges extracted above, it appears that while the 1st petitioner was driving jeep No.MP-26W-1437 under influenced alcohol, an accident occurred resulting in the death of one lady passenger and injuries to a constable R.K.Pandey. Another charge is to the effect that he willfully absented from the unit from 06.03.1998 onwards without any intimation or permission from the competent authority. As can be seen from the record, the statement of Pw.3, one of the victims and eye-witness to the alleged accident, clearly established the fact that the 1st petitioner had driven the jeep in a reckless manner. The smell of liquor emanating from the mouth of the 1st petitioner was confirmed by the constables R.K.Pandey and Anwar Hussain. Basing on the evidences that the petitioner was absented unauthorisedly to duties from 06.03.1998 and also the statements of the witnesses that the 1st petitioner has consumed alcohol, the disciplinary authority, having come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the 1st petitioner are proved, imposed the punishment of removal from service and the same was confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities, which cannot be found fault with. However, though Pw.3- Pandey stated that the 1st petitioner smelled alcohol, there is no medical evidence in support of this statement. It was the stand of the respondents that since the 1st petitioner was unauthorisedly absented to duties after the alleged accident, he could not be sent for medical examination. Except the statement of PW.3 to the effect that the 1st petitioner smelled alcohol on the date of the alleged accident, there is no medical evidence to show that the 1st petitioner was in intoxicated condition on the date of the alleged accident. Apart from this, there is no dispute that the 1st petitioner had rendered 10 years of unblemished service and that, for the first time, he has committed the alleged misconduct. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the 1st petitioner. Generally speaking, in a case of this nature, the matter requires to be remanded for re-consideration to the disciplinary authority, but since the 1st petitioner is no more and that more than 12 years elapsed from the date of imposing the punishment of removal from service, instead of remanding the matter for re-consideration, I am of the considered opinion that the litigation can be given a quietus here itself by modifying the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the deceased workman by the 1st respondent to that of compulsory retirement of the deceased workman from service. Accordingly, the respondent management is directed to treat that the 1st petitioner-deceased workman was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and the 2nd petitioner, the legal heir of the 1st petitioner, shall be paid all the benefits accrued to the account of the 1st petitioner and are payable to him, as per law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 24.01.2011 v v