This petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 29th September, 2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition whereby the disciplinary authority has dismissed the petitioner from his services and the appellate authority vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, confirmed the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority.

2. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he is only pressing his petition only• on the ground that the punishment did not commensurate with the charges and it is disproportionate and shocking, as such, the punishment should be reduced. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is to retire after two years from today and he is a low paid employee.

3. learned counsel appearing for the State refuted the contention and contended that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not disproportionate and he further supported the order of the disciplinary authority, but he did not deny the fact that the petitioner is going to retire within two years from today.

4. The petitioner has been charged while he was on duty, he entered into the Office of his superior officer for seeking leave and he was in a drunken condition. Thereafter, he was examined by the doctor and he was found under the influence of alcohol. The enquiry officer found him guilty and the disciplinary authority after considering the show-cause to the petitioner, passed the impugned order of punishment by way of dismissal of the petitioner from the services. The petitioner filed the departmental appeal which was ultimately dismissed by the appellate authority. Now, I have to analyze as to whether the punishment is shocking and disproportionate. I will like to discuss the legal proposition as discussed in different Rulings.

5. In the case of Ram Kishan vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995)6 157, in which it has been observed in paras-11 and 12 which is quoted as under:

"11. It is next to be seen whether imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation. When abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language. No straitjacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. What was the nature of the abusive language used by the appellant was not stated.

12. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of charge imputed to the delinquent constable. Accordingly, we set aside the dismissal order. We hold that imposition of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would be an appropriate punishment. So, we direct the disciplinary authority to impose that punishment. However, since the appellant himself is responsible for the initiation of the proceedings, we find that he is not entitled to back wages; but, all other consequential benefits would be available to him."

6. In the case of Hussaini vs. Hon Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court Judicature at Allahabad & Ors., reported in (1985)1 SCC 120, the matter came up again for the consideration, in which it has been observed in paras 4 and 5 which is quoted as under:

"4. Appellant was a low paid safai jamadar. We do not propose to minimise the gravity of his misconduct for which the High Court thought fit to impose maximum punishment of dismissal from service simultaneously denying him all retiral benefits. Without in any manner detracting from the view taken by the High Court we are of the opinion that there is some scope for taking a little lenient view in the matter