CWP No. 20505 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20505 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 17-11-2010 Malkit Ram ` ....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 14.10.2009 and 13.1.2010. He was charged on two counts which indicated dereliction of duty indiscipline and mis-conduct. The charges are extracted here below:- “1. That while on duty, C.No. 031527893 Const./GD Malkit Ram on 10.5.2009 at 1945 Hrs in Gujjar Mandi, Rajouri, during briefing to deploy on patrolling duty was found drunk. Therefore, under section 11(1) of the CRPF Rules 1949, No. 031527893 Constable/GD Malkit Ram, being a member of the CRPF, is charged with indiscipline and mis-conduct which is a punishable offence. 2. That while on duty, F.No. 031527893 Const./GD Malkit Ram on 10.5.2009 at 1945 Hrs in Gujjar Mandi, Rajouri, during briefing to deploy on patrolling duty CWP No. 20505 of 2010(O&M) 2 was found drunk. His weapons and ammunition were taken in custody and he was got medically examined and in his place, another worker was deputed to perform the duties. Therefore, under section 11(1) of the CRPF Rules 1949 No. 031527893 Constable/ GD Malkit Ram, being a member of CRPF, is charged with dereliction of duties which is a punishable offence.” A proper inquiry was held in which the petitioner was found guilty and charges were proved. In a subsequent remedy by way of an appeal, his prayer has been declined by virtue of the order impugned herein. While passing the impugned order, the competent authority under the Act has referred to the repeated mis-conduct of the petitioner and finding that the petitioner belongs to the Armed Forces and is required to maintain discipline and also noticing the fact that despite the repeated mis-conduct of the petitioner which was condoned by taking a lenient view earlier in order to enable the petitioner to reform himself and on the failure of the petitioner to do so, and the charges being proved against him resulted in his dismissal and the passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal infirmity in either the procedure leading to passing of the impugned order or pertaining to the conduct of the petitioner i.e previous and the present which was the subject matter of the charges against him. The Appellate Authority by its elaborate reasoning has thus passed a justifiable order. A person who belongs to the Armed Forces is expected to maintain discipline which such services warrant. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was deployed on a sensitive CWP No. 20505 of 2010(O&M) 3 assignment which involved the collection and deposition of the weapons and consumption of alcohol while on such a sensitive assignment can hardly be a conduct which can be over-looked. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, dismissed. November 17, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge