D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4138 of 2000 dated 26th July, 2012. By this judgment, petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, has been upheld and writ was dismissed and therefore, original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, no cross examination of the witnesses in course of inquiry was given, there is also violation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 34 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that punishment inflicted upon this appellant-delinquent is unreasonable, excessive and shockingly disproportionate. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and hence, the said judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that gross is a misconduct as this appellant-delinquent is a member of the disciplined force-Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as “CISF” for the sake of brevity). He was posted on duty on 7.9.1998 at about 21.00 hours till 8.9.1998 at about 5 a.m. Purpose for which this appellant-constable was posted nearby the shop No.020 and CPL building of HMBP. Attempt of theft was committed by one person in the very same shop where this appellant was posted for duty. This is the degree of care taken by this appellant. This is charge no.1. So far as charge no. 2 is concerned, when this appellant was called by the high-ranking administrative officer of CISF on 8.9.1998 at about 15.30 hours, rough reply was given that this appellant was feeling sleepy. Both the charges were levelled against this appellant-delinquent about dereliction in duty and on the direction of the superior officer, enquiry officer was appointed. Three witnesses and other documentary evidences were placed before the enquiry officer and ultimately, enquiry officer gave his reply on 26.4.1999 and the charge, levelled against this appellant, was held as proved. Thereafter, second show cause for quantum of punishment was also given to the delinquent and ultimately, respondent no.4-the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force dismissed this appellant from the services vide order dated 31.7.1999 against which, departmental appeal was preferred by this appellant and the same was also dismissed by the appellate authority-The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Sector II vide order dated 4.12.1999. Against which writ petition bearing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4138 of 2000 was preferred which was dismissed by the learned single judge vide order dated 26th July, 2012. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there is no illegality committed by the respondents in holding the inquiry. Adequate opportunity of being heard was given. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, looking to nature of misconduct and the nature of the duty to be performed by this appellant being a member of the disciplined force-CISF and in presence of this appellant-constable attempt of theft was committed and moreover, he was called by the high-ranking administrative officer of CISF on 8.9.1998 on the next day at about 15.30 hours, this appellant has not obeyed this order and gave reply that he was feeling sleepy. Hence, his services have been removed. Therefore, quantum of punishment cannot be considered as unreasonable, excessive nor it can be said that it is shockingly disproportionate. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Jud