The penalty of removal from service for intoxication while on duty is justified as it constitutes gross indiscipline, affirming the primacy of the Disciplinary Authority's discretion in such matters.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Assistant Inspector General/Disciplinary Authority, Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "CISF"), directing removal of the petitioner from service with immediate effect; the order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the above order of removal from service; and the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Inspector General/APS-II, CISF, APS-II HQRS, Bangalore dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order confirming petitioner's removal from service.

2. The petitioner was charged with the following charge:

" Charge No.1

Force No.110411974 Ex.A.S.I./Exe. Pradeep Kumar, C.I.S.F. Unit ASG, Shirdi Airport, was deputed on duty on 3.10.2018 from 2100 Hrs. Till 0600 Hrs., on 04.10.2018, on night duty with 9mm Pistol (being Regn. No.186864) & 30 rounds of ammunition on Explosion Works Supervision Duty Post. The said force member was found under the influence of liquor at about 2100 Hrs. during the duty hours, and he was not in a position to perform his duty in proper manner. Hence, there is a charge against the said A.S.I./Exe. Pradeep Kumar that he reported on duty with arms (9mm Pistol) after consuming liquor, which shows grave negligence towards duty, irresponsible attitude and indiscipline on his part."

3. As the petitioner denied the charge, a departmental enquiry was initiated by appointing an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer found the above charge to be proved against the petitioner whereupon, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the representation made by the petitioner against the enquiry report, found the petitioner guilty of the charge as framed and ordered removal of the petitioner from service.

4. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner's appeal and revision thereagainst were dismissed by the order(s) dated 23.04.2019 and 24.09.2019, respectively.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner does not challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the penalty of removal from service is highly disproportionate to the charge framed against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had joined the CISF in the year 2011 as an Assistant Sub-Inspector. The petitioner has always maintained good character and had no adverse remarks against him. The impugned infraction is the only instance of dereliction of duty by the petitioner. Even in the present instance, barring finding that the petitioner had consumed liquor, there is no allegation of the petitioner having created any ruckus, having misbehaved, or having resisted the authority in such state. He submits that therefore, the petitioner should have been dealt with leniently.

6. He places reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions:

i) Jai Bagwan vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 187;

ii) Tapash Chandra Roy vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2017) 5 Gauhati Law Reports 3;

iii) Ex. Constable Shashi Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4076;

iv) Ex. Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar No.913126828 vs. Union of India & Ors., 2007 OnLine All 1308.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the charge against the petitioner is extremely grave and therefore, the penalty cannot be said to be disproportionate. In s