Misra, J. -- 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a former employee of the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria has called in question the tenability of the order dated 12.2.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short 'the Tribunal' ).

2. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was while working in the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria was found in a drunken state in the working hours. In addition, he was also playing truant and remaining absent from duties. Be it noted, the petitioner was working as a 'Durwan' in the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. Because of this situation a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a charge-sheet was served on him. After the charge-sheet was served, the delinquent employee filed this show-cause admitting the charges levelled against him. On the basis of the admission, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal vide Annexure P-3 dated 10.11.1990.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Memorandum of appeal has been brought on record as Annexure P-4. In the appeal in paragraph 3 it was expressly stated that he had accepted the charges as he was assured that lesser punishment would be imposed. The appellate authority vide Annexure P-6 scrutinising the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal came to hold that after admitting the charges, the petitioner cannot take asomersault. The appellate authority also stated that the contention of the petitioner that he was not intoxicated was not acceptable as after medical examination it was confirmed that he was under influence of alcohol. Eventually the appeal stood dismissed.

4. The aforesaid factual matrix compelled the petitioner to file an original application before the Tribunal forming the subject matter of OA No. 91/96. The Tribunal took stock of fact situation and expressed the opinion that when he had admitted the charges levelled against him there was no necessity of inquiry and the orders passed by the authorities did not warrant interference. It is worth noting here that in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal it was admitted in categorical terms that at the time of service of charge-sheet the disciplinary authority had promised him to inflict lesser punishment and, therefore, he had admitted the charges. Nothing has been brought on record to show that any assurance was given to him. What is reflectable is that the petitioner has admitted the charges. The same is also noticeable from Annexure P-2.

5. From the aforesaid it is clear as crystal that there was admission of the charges by the petitioner levelled against him; that there is no material to show that the disciplinary authority has forced or coerced or did anything to persuade him admit the charges; and that once there had been admission, there was no question for conducting of an inquiry.

6. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner while criticizing the order passed by the Tribunal tried to hold unto the last plank by submitting that the petitioner was a 'durwan' in the Ordnance Factory and remained absent due to unavoidable circumstances and, therefore, he should have been dealt with leniency. In essence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that doctrine of proportionality gets attracted to the case at hand.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. Oharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the charge-sheet would go a long way to show that the petitioner was in the habit of remaining absent in the duty hours and remained absent for a considerable length of time and he was found in drunken state despite the fact that he was holding the post of 'darban' and hence, the doctrine of proportionality does not get attracted.

8.+9. At this juncture,