The court established that dismissal from service could be imposed under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, even without specific prosecution for offenses under other sections, and that the court would not normally alter a punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless it was shocking to the conscience of the court.

( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 8/11/1997 passed by the respondets whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

( 2 ) WHILE working in the Central reserve police Force a departmental enquiry was instituted againsst the petitioner with two specific charges. After the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and the same was round to be unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. In article I of the charges, it was alleged that the petitioner on return form petroling duty on May 22, 1996 at 2230 hours demanded issue of liquor from Ct. Harish Chandra Tripathy and when his reqyest was not entertained by Ct. Harish Chandra tripathy, he entered into an altercation with the said Ct. Harish Chandra Tripathy storeman and also kicked his box to express his anguish. In article II of the charges, it was alleged that when the petitioner was denied issue of liquor on May 22, 1996, he suddenlt cocked his carbine and approached with premeditated and mala fide intention to kill HC S. K. Sharma, L. Nk. Khulin kuki and Ct. Lokender Singh but on the midway he was intercepted and his carbine wastched away. The petitioner did not plead guilty of charges during the course of enquiry and accordingly the enquiry officer proceeded to record evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. On completion of the enquiry, the officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The afpresaod enquiry report is dated 8/11/1997. After following the procedure, the disciplinary authority considered the report and thereafter passed the aforesaid impugned order imposing upon the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service

( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the impugned action had, been taken by the respondents under the provisions of section 11 of the Cental Reserve Police Force Act. and, therefore, according to him no major penalty like dismissal from service could have been imposed upon the petitioners as provisions of Section 11 of the Act relates only to minor punishments, the nature of which are set out in paragraph (a) to (e) of the said Section 11. According to the counsel, dismissal from service is not included as one of those punishments and, therefore, the action of the respondents in awarding the penalty of dismissal from service was illegal and void. It way also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in any case, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the offence alleged and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed. Counsel further submitted that while conducting the, departmental enquiry, the principles of natural justice have been violated and in that view of the matter also the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

( 4 ) MR. Rajiv Shakdhar, counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that a bare reading of the provisions of Section 11 of the central Reserve Police Force Act would indicate that one of the punisments mentioned therein is dismissal from service and, therefore, imposition of ppenalty of dismissal from service in the instant case applyiny the provision of Section 11 cannot be said to be illegal and void. It was also submitted by him that this Court has no power and jurisdiction to alter the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority as the said power is not vested in this Court while dealing with the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. He also submitted that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself in the trial and that there was no violation of the principles of natural jutice in any manner in conducting the enquiry.

( 5 ) IN the light or the aforesaid submissions, I have considered the records as also the provisions of the Central R