J. K. TANDON, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against an order dated 17 December 1956, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on a petition by the present appellant under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 2 ) THE petitioner commenced service as a constable in 1938 and was posted as a head constable of the Armed Constabulary at Unnao in February 1954. An incident took place on 29 February 1954, in connexion with collection of subscription for a proposed milad sharif in the police lines at Unnao, The petitioner had approached Sri Kamta Singh, sub-inspector, Armed Police, with an application for permitting arrangement for the realization of subscription for the said milad sharif. This application was on 27 February 1954, and it is alleged that it was thrown away by Sri kamta Singh. The following day the petitioner complained about it to the reserve inspector Sri m. A. C. Grath, who sent for Sri Kamta Singh; then it is said that in the presence of Sri Grath when Sri Kamta Singh was also there, the petitioner behaved rudely and imputed com-munal bias to Sri Kamta Singh. In respect of this incident of 28 February 1954, the Superintendent of police ultimately served the following charge on the petitioner :. G. K. Mathur, Superintendent of Police, charge you, H. C. /a. P. , 18, Mohammad Sharif Khan, under Section 7, Police Act, for negligence and remissness in discharge of your duty and unfitness for same in that you misbehaved with sub-inspector, Armed Police, Sri Kamta Singh, on the morning of 28 February 1954. The Superintendent of Police further required him to file his defence along with a list of witnesses, etc. , whom he proposed to examine in support of his explanation. ( 3 ) ON 13 March 1954, the petitioner submitted his explanation in which he complained firstly, that the charge delivered to him was vague, and second, that he was not disrespectful towards Sri kamta Singh. In other words, he denied the accusation of rudeness and disrespectful behaviour towards his superior, Sri Kamta Singh. ( 4 ) AN enquiry was then held on the above charge. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the enquiry, found the charge proved against the appellant and proposed the punishment of dismissal. In other words, he denied the accusation of rudeness and disrespectful behaviour towards his superior, Sri Kamta Singh. ( 4 ) AN enquiry was then held on the above charge. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the enquiry, found the charge proved against the appellant and proposed the punishment of dismissal. The Superintendent of Police to whom the report was submitted, however, held that in the circumstances of the case the punishment of demotion for a year was sufficient, but held the charge to be proved. ( 5 ) AGAINST the order of the Superintendent of Police appellant appealed to the Deputy inspector-General of Police who by his order dated 29 September 1954, called upon the appellant to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced into one of dismissal. The appellant then submitted his explanation but on 24 December 1954 the Deputy Inspector-General of Police changed the punishment into one of dismissal. An appeal by the petitioner to the inspector-General of Police against the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police also failed on 22 December 1955. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a petition out of which the present appeal has arisen. ( 6 ) THREE grounds were urged before the learned single Judge: (1) that there was no preliminary enquiry prior to the framing of the charge and this vitiated the proceedings; (2) that a reasonable opportunity had not been given as required by Article 311 of the constitution when the show-cause notice was given to him; and (3) that the punishment awarded was disproportionate and unnecessarily severe. ( 7 ) THE learned single Judge held against the appellant on all three grounds, though on the last ground he observed: it may be that the sentence awarded may be excessive, bud that will be a matter which can only be decided by the officers. Concerned and this Court cannot interfere with that punishment. ( 8 ) IN the appeal before us the learned Counsel for the appellant has urged one further ground, viz. , that the charge which had been delivered to the appellant was vague and failed to convey the accusation against him ; the whole enquiry was, therefore, vitiated. It is also said that the punishment was excessive and further that the case did not come within the purview of Section 7 of the Police Act. , that the charge which had been delivered to the appellant was vague and failed to convey the accusation against him ; the whole enquiry was, therefore, vitiated. It is also said that the punishment was excessive and further that the case did not come within the purview of Section 7 of the Police Act. ( 9 ) SECTION 7 of the Police Act makes remiss-ness or negligence in the discharge of duty by a police officer punishable. The charge served on the appellant has been stated earlier and, according to it, the appellant was accused of negligence and remissness in connexion with his misbehaviour towards Sub-inspector Sri Kamta Singh on 28 February 1954. No doubt the details of the alleged misbehaviour by the appellant were not mentioned in the charge; all the same, the incident in which the appellant is said to have misbehaved towards Kamta Singh was mentioned in it. The incident out of which, the charge arose was not disputed by the appellant at any time, though he disowned having used disrespectful language or having misbehaved towards Sri kamta Singh. The absence of the details of the incident of the 28 February which were unnecessary to be stated in the charge cannot, in our opinion, be said to render the charge vague. The appellant knew what the accusation was. He was aware of the details also against him when the evidence was led. It cannot, therefore, be urged successfully that he was prejudiced in any manner by the absence of details from the charge. In our opinion, there is no merit in this objection. ( 10 ) WE are unable to see any force in the other objection also which is that Section 7 of the police Act did not apply to the present facts. The appellant was charged of remissness and negligence in his duty. The details of the charge have been noticed earlier. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that disrespectful behaviour is neither negligence nor remissness, hence Section 7 is inapplicable. Disrespectful behaviour towards a superior and rudeness towards him by a subordinate police officer will, in a case as the present, in our opinion, always amount to remissness in the discharge of duty. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that disrespectful behaviour is neither negligence nor remissness, hence Section 7 is inapplicable. Disrespectful behaviour towards a superior and rudeness towards him by a subordinate police officer will, in a case as the present, in our opinion, always amount to remissness in the discharge of duty. The facts are that when he reported against Sri Kamta Singh to the reserve inspector and the reserve inspector asked Sri kamta Singh also to be there, the appellant used harsh and discourteous language towards Sri kamta Singh and also attributed communal bias to him. A member of the police force cannot be permitted to behave in such a manner. By reason of his employment and, the rules governing his duties he is expected not only to be respectful towards his superiors but display a sense of discipline and restraint also. In the present case, he betrayed just the opposite behaviour. He was, therefore, rightly proceeded against under Section 7 of the Police Act. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel has pointed out to us that this was the single incident in which his client had been found guilty of misbehaviour, that he was in police service for pretty long and had been the recipient of several promotions and rewards, in the circumstanced be submits that the punishment of dismissal was unwarranted. As was observed by the learned single Judge, it is nod within our province to assess the quantum of punishment which in a particular case is to be awarded to a delinquent Government servant. The authority who awarded the punishment was the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and we are not in a position to find faults with his decision, trader the circumstances, we see no force in this objection also. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but no order is made as to costs. .