The court upheld the removal of the petitioner based on the charges and found that the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition order dated 26. 12. 1995 (Annexure 9) has been challenged, whereby the petitioner has been removed from Service.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri S. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri S. S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State and respondents.

( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in 56 Bn. , N. C. C. , Jhansi on 23. 2. 1967 and was regularised on 28. 10. 1983. However, for unauthorised absence from duty and for disobeying lawful orders of Commanding Officer and absenting himself frequently without leave for over two years and eleven months and for creating activities as security risk and for undesirable activities the petitioner was charge-sheeted and after obtaining reply and Enquiry report the petitioner was removed from services on 26. 12. 1995. Against this order the petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 7864 of 1996.

( 4 ) IT appears that for non-payment of salary and arrears for unauthorised absence the petitioner filed a Case No. 70/1992 before the Labour Court, which was decided in favour of the petitioner on 31. 8. 1994, against which the Commanding Officer, N. C. C. preferred an appeal before the district Judge, Jhansi, which was decided on 13. 8. 1996 against the petitioner. Above order of the district Judge was challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 37045 of 1996. Under the bona fide impression that the termination order dated 26. 12. 1995 was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court in Case No. 70/1992, this Court on 1. 3. 2000 dismissed the present Writ petition No. 7864/1996 with an observation that for the same cause of action the present writ petition was not maintainable. A recall application was filed,, which was allowed by this Court on 30. 8. 2001, by which it was clarified that the Writ Petition No. 37045/1996 was in respect of the payment of salary and arrears for authorised absence and not in respect of the order dated 26. 12. 1995. However, again on 16. 8. 2000 the present Writ Petition No. 7864 of 1996 was dismissed in default, which again on the restoration application of the petitioner was restored by this Court on 11. 11. 2002.

( 5 ) SEVEN charges in respect of unauthorised absence, disobedience, for undesirable activities, refusing to perform the duty, creating activities to the security risk were served to the petitioner and reply were obtained from the petitioner and after proper enquiry in accordance with law as contended by the respondents the petitioner was removed from the services. The counter-affidavit was filed. According to Para 2 (1) of the counter-affidavit the petitioner is habitual trouble a creator and an in-disciplined person. He was found to be a security risk by the then Commanding Officer Lt. Col. S. S. Sujlana, as he was found to have removed some accountable papers from the office. He was penalised for this due to his undesirable activities he had earlier been removed from the duty of a peon by Lt. Col. S. S. Sujlana and was assigned a light duty i. e. , watering of plants in the office area. This he refused as he considered it to be a labours job. A letter was written to N. C. C. GP. HQS. Kanpur regarding change of his designation. It was initiated by them that Sri Rana Pratap will carry-out any duties assigned to him. He, however, refused to carry out the duties assigned to him by the Commanding Officer. According to Para 2 (11) of the counter-affidavit the petitioner was given an alternative duty of a unit Chowkidar at night as per charter of duties of Class IV Employees, which he refused to perform. He was detailed to make administrative arrangement at the unit short range for firing by cadets and staff on 8th May, 1992 and 9th May, 1992, where he refused to perform this duty. He absented himself without leave w. e. f, 8th May, 1992 to 28th June, 1993 and rejoined on 29th june, 1993 on his own. He was, therefore, n