S.B.Sanyal, J.

1. Petitioner is a Constable of Central Reserve Police Force. The Force was constituted under Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). He was appointed in the year 1970. In the year 1976 he was posted at Mokamahghat.

2. He has been dismissed by an order of the Commandant on 25-10-1976 (Annexure-6). His appeal was dismissed (Annexure-7). The dismissal order as preceded by chargesheet and domestic enquiry. Petitioner participated in the enquiry. The Enquiring Officer found the charge proved (Annexure-4). Before passing the order of dismissal, petitioner was also asked to show cause against proposed punishment. This is required under rule 27 (7) of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). Petitioner desires this Court to quash the enquiry report (Annexure-4), the order of dismissal (Annexure-6) and the order dismissing his appeal (Annexure-7).

3. learned Counsel of the petitioner raised a number of points. Most of points relate to domestic enquiry being vitiated in law charges levelled are vague and do not constitute misconduct, Enquiring Officers reliance on prior evidence of the wife of the complainant Constable, is an extraneous consideration, the Commandant even though required under the Rules to record his own finding on the charges levelled, on receipt of enquiry report, he did not do so.

4. Mr. Kamla Kant Prasad, learned Standing Counsel refuted the points raised. According to learned Counsel misbehaving with colleagues wife, during his absence on duty from his quarter in the night, is gross indiscipline. The charge states these facts and, therefore, not vague. The evidence of the victim lady was recorded by the previous Enquiring Officer and she was cross-examined at length by the petitioner (Annexure-A). The said enquiry was cancelled on a technical ground only, as because the complaint petition of the husband was not served on the petitioner. His evidence was available on record, therefore, it was not an extraneous consideration. The Commandant, according to learned Counsel has not acted mechanically which is manifest from his final order (Annexure-6).

5. The charge levelled against the petitioner is Annexure-1. It states the petitioner committed an offence by going to family lines of his colleague, during his absence on duty, while the wife was alone, with an intention to commit immoral act. This is said to have been seen by Constable Mahesh Kumar. Going to family lines by any one not living there is forbidden under the Camp standing order dated 15-5-1974. This is said to be misconduct under Sec.11 (1) of the Act.

6. Under the Act or the Rules misconduct has not been set out. Section 9 of the Act lists More Heinous Offences, and Sec.10 of the Act lists Less Heinous Offences. Sec.10(n) reads as follows:

10. Less Heinous Offences=Every member of the Force who: xx xx xx xx xx

(n) is guilty of any act or omission which, though not specified in this Act, is pre-judical to good order and discipline;

xx xx xx xx xx

7. Those who commit the offences listed, for More Heinous Offences, punishment imposable is 7 years or 14 years imprisonment with fine which may extend to 3 months pay. For Less Heinous Offences a person can be imprisoned for a terra which may extend to 1 year or with fine which may extend to three months pay. Sec.11 (1) reads as follows:

11. Minor Punishment: (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say:

8. The word "dismissal" finds mention in Sec.11 of the Act. The said Section envisages that the Commandant is co