The court held that the disciplinary authority has the discretion to impose punishment for disobedience of orders under Section 9 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and that the court will not interfere with the punishment unless it is disproportionate to the misconduct.

( 1 ) THE petitioner while was working as Sub-Inspector, 2nd Battalion at wokha, one Mr. V. D. Sahagal Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Central Reserve police Force, Wokha, directed the petitioner to supply a radio set with wireless operator for convoy duties. The petitioner has disobeyed supply there of. As a consequence, the Commandant issued Movement Order to move to RGS in 2nd battalion. But he disobeyed that order also. It is also alleged that he behaved in an insolent and rude manner with Dr. P. N. Rao, Medical Officer, 2nd Battalion. Accordingly, Charge Memo was issued on March 18,1976. The petitioner has submitted his explanation and an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer after due enquiry, by his letter dated August 14,1976 submitted his report stating that the charge No. 1 viz. , refusal to supply radio set and wireless operator has been proved and Charge No. 3 has also been proved but with modification that theincident look place on November 28, 1975 evening at 19. 30 hrs. and not at 11. 30 hrs. Thereon, the disciplinary authority has issued a show cause notice on September 18, 1976 as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service. The petitioner has submitted his explanation. Then, by proceedings dated November 12, 1976, he was removed from service and on appeal and further revision, it was confirmedthe latter by order dated january 12, 1981. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.

( 2 ) SRI Ramamohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised seven contentions in support of the case of the petitioner. The first contention is that the petitioner has not been afforded reasonable opportunity before issuing the charge memoas to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him, therefore, it is against the principles of natural justice. I find no force in the contention. It is settled law that it is always open to the disciplinary authority to give such an opportunity before initiating the proceedings but the material facts should be stated in the charge memo and the material on the basis of which charge memo is given should be supplied to the delinquent officer. Therefore, before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, there is no express rule to provide such an opportunity and the principles of natural justice also do not come into that area.

( 3 ) IT is next contended that the enquiry officer is not conversant with technical aspects of the misconduct and he did not properly appreciate the evidence and therefore the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is vitiated on account of his lack of technical knowledge in this behalf. But unfortunately, the petitioner has not taken any objection before the enquiry officer when the enquiry was taken up. Therefore, having submitted to the jurisdiction of the enquiry officer, it is too late in the day to raise that plea that the enquiry officer is not competent to conduct the enquiry for the alleged lack of technical knowledge in this behalf. 4. It is next contended that there is no reasonable opportunity given to the petitioner to proceed to Dimapur to seek the assistance of the persons who are acquainted with Hindi and English; the persons at Kohima are not conversant with English and Hindi and therefore it is violative of the principles of natural justice. I find no force in this regard also. The petitioner admittedly did not complain of this either to the disciplinary authority viz. , ex-officio D. I. G. or mr. V. D. Shagal, who kept the petitioner under suspension. His case is that he has written a letter to the Commandant of the Wireless Battalion, Hyderabad. The very writing of the letter is disputed by the respondent and k is stated that no such request was made. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not admittedly make any request either to the disciplinary authority or to the enquiry officer or to Mr. Shagal who kept him under suspension. I do not