IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1506/2007 Reserved on:5.9.2008 Decided on:24.9.2008 Sunil Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Shilpa Sood, Central Government Counsel. Rajiv Sharma, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as CT/GD Constable with Central Reserve Police Force on 22.4.1996. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 28.8.2006. The precise charges against the petitioner were that he committed an act of remissness in discharge of his duties in his capacity as a Member of the Force while he was deployed as Guard at JO’s mess on 2.5.2006 from 20.00 hours to 22.00 hours by the Guard Commander, but he was found drunk on his bed which was against the good order and discipline of the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 force. He was directed by the Guard Commander to complete his duty but he refused to do so which was against the good order and discipline of the force. An Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 20.9.2006. The petitioner participated in the inquiry proceedings from beginning to end. The copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner vide communication dated 23.1.2007. He was removed from the service on 6.2.2007. He preferred an appeal against the order dated 6.2.2007. The appellate authority partially accepted the appeal on 11.4.2007 and the penalty of removal was converted to compulsory retirement. The principal stand in the writ petition is that there is violation of the principles of natural justice since the petitioner has not been afforded the reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. In this case, no reply was filed by the respondents, however, the entire record was produced for the perusal of the Court. Mr. Rahul Mahajan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not been dealt with in a just and fair manner. He also contended that the petitioner should have been permitted to be defended by an authorized person in accordance with the Central Reserve Police Force, Act, 1949 and the rules framed thereunder. He further contended that the penalty of compulsory retirement inflicted upon the petitioner is harsh and oppressive. Ms. Shilpa sood, Central Government Counsel has supported the order dated 11.4.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 3 It is evident from the record produced by Ms. Shilpa Sood that the petitioner had been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself at every stage of the departmental proceedings. The submission of Mr. Rahul Mahajan that the petitioner should have been permitted to defend by an authorized person is contrary to the record. The petitioner has admitted his guilt before the Inquiry Officer in both the charges. He has been supplied with the copy of the inquiry report vide communication dated 23rd January, 2007. In fact, in his letter addressed to Commandant dated 31.1.2007, he has again admitted the guilt and undertaken not to repeat the mistake in future. This letter is at page 52 of the record. The petitioner belongs to a disciplined force. Once he has been directed to perform his guard duty at a particular point, he had no occasion to drink and not to report for duty. He was spotted on the bed and did not obey the command and report for duty in JO’s mess on 2.5.2006. He was medically examined by the Medical Officer and was found drunk. The statements of as many as six witnesses were recorded and the copies of the same were supplied to him. He has refused to cross-examine them. He should have obeyed the order of the Guard Commander and superiors. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence had rightly come to a conclusion that both the charges where proved against the delinquent. Though initially the penalty of removal was imposed upon him, however, vide order dated 11.4.2007, the penalty was converted to compulsory retirement by the appellate authority taking a lenient view. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner cannot be termed either as harsh or oppressive. The penalty of compulsory retirement inflicted upon the petitioner commensurates with the misconduct. The members of the disciplined forces cannot be allowed to drink on duty hours and refuse to 4 obey the command of their superiors. The indiscipline in the armed forces like the Central Police Reserve Force has to be dealt with sternly. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as submitted by Mr. Rahul Mahajan. The procedure laid down in accordance with law has been followed by the Inquiry Officer. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 24.9.2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*