SUDHIR RANJAN ROY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Constable belonging to the State Armed Police, 7th (Coal-Belt) Battalion at Asansol, was a Mess Manager of some of the Constables in Kenda Company. ( 2 ) A shop keeper of the area made a complaint against him to the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner as Mess Manager owned him a sum of Rs. 454 and odd. Over this there was an enquiry by respondent No. 4. On such facts and also for his alleged misbehaviour towards respondent No. 4, the petitioner was charge-sheeted by respondent No. 2 who, after holding a departmental enquiry, found the petitioner guilty of both the charges and ultimately dismissed him from service by his order, dated August 25, 1977. An appeal by the petitioner against the said order of dismissal to the D. I. G. Police having been proved to be abortive, he on February 23, 1978 moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the instant Rule. ( 3 ) NONE hating appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice, the matter was taken up for ex parte disposal. ( 4 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate, besides challenging the competence of the respondent No. 2, the Disciplinary Authority, to hold the enquiry, also challenged the findings in the enquiry proceedings as arbitrary and capricious. He further contended that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was extremely harsh and also totally disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. ( 5 ) NOW, regarding the competence of respondent No. 2, the disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry, reference may be made to the relevant provisions of the Police Regulations Bengal 1943. The note under Regulations 861 (e) and 861 (f) make it clear that the disciplinary authority is not debarred from holding enquiry. Incidentally, the relevant portion of Regulation 861 (f) is as hereunder:"the authority empowered to pass the orders of punishment shall grant a personal hearing to the person charged if prayed for and then pass the final orders. When the enquiring officer himself passed the final order, no personal hearing is necessary as the person charged is present throughout the enquiry". ( 6 ) IT shows clearly, that the disciplinary authority may also hold the enquiry. When the enquiring officer himself passed the final order, no personal hearing is necessary as the person charged is present throughout the enquiry". ( 6 ) IT shows clearly, that the disciplinary authority may also hold the enquiry. ( 7 ) COMING now to the findings of the Enquiring Officer, it appears that on the concerned shopkeeper's complaint that the petitioner owned him a sum of Rs. 454 and odd as Mess Manager, there was an enquiry by respondent No. 4 Inspector, State Armed Police. The report submitted by him is Annexure 'f' to the writ petition, the report shows that the concerned shopkeeper failed to produce any reliable document before him in support of his allegation. However, from the report of the enquiry officer, (Annexure 'c') it appears that during the enquiry proceedings the shopkeeper produced some documents in support of his claim on which reliance was placed by the enquiry officer. In doing so, however, the enquiry officer seems to have failed to take proper note of the fact that the shopkeeper could not produce any such document before respondent No. 4, who held an on-the-spot enquiry. In the circumstances, the enquiry Officer, in my view, should not have placed implicit reliance upon the document subsequently produced, since there was every possibility of such documents being manufactured during the enquiry proceedings. As a matter of fact, the enquiry officer should have rejected the documents subsequently produced or at least have taken them with a grain of salt, which he did not do. ( 8 ) INCIDENTALLY, the petitioner's case all along was that he owed only a sum of Rs. 130 to the shopkeeper concerned and that too in his personal capacity and not in his capacity as Mess Manager. Significantly, the shop keeper's stand before respondent No. 4 was that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 426 from him. The finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner owed the amount claimed in his capacity as Mess Manager, is not borne out by the evidence adduced before him and accordingly, the findings that the dues were not personal to him but were incurred by him in his capacity as Mess Manager should be held to be arbitrary and without any basis. So far as the shopkeeper is concerned, the enquiry officer in view of his previous conduct, should have refused to place any reliance on his evidence. So, here is a case where the finding of the enquiry officer is arbitrary and capricious and not based on proper evidence. ( 9 ) IN the above view of the matter it is doubtful whether the petitioner could have been charge sheeted or dismissed from service on account of his having raised a personal loan from the concerned shopkeeper. ( 10 ) AS regards to the alleged misbehavior of the petitioner towards respondent No. 4, it was supported by respondent No. 4 himself and two other witnesses. The petitioner simply gave a denial without adducing any evidence to prove that no such incident as alleged actually occurred. Some discrepancy is of course there regarding the actual place where the incident occurred, out that is not of much consequence. ( 11 ) I do not, however, think that the petitioner could have been dismissed from service on that account. In this connection reference may be made to Regulation 856 of the Police Regulations Bengal which provides that the officers shall avoid undue harshness in awarding punishment. ( 12 ) IN this connection it may not be out of place to refer to the following observation of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 454 (at page 460)"it is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that, any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. " ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and considering particularly that the matter is pending since 1978, it would be sheer denial of justice to adhere to the technicality of referring back the matter to the disciplinary authority for inflicting proper punishment to the petitioner on the basis of the second charge. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is simply censured and the censure is noted in his service book. ( 14 ) THE Rule is, accordingly disposed of. ( 15 ) THE order of dismissal, dated August 25,. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is simply censured and the censure is noted in his service book. ( 14 ) THE Rule is, accordingly disposed of. ( 15 ) THE order of dismissal, dated August 25,. 1977 passed against the petitioner be hereby set aside and, the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages from the date of dismissal up to the date of reinstatement. The reinstatement should be made within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order and all arrears back wages should be paid to him within a period of sixty days from the date of such reinstatement. ( 16 ) THE sum of Rs. 464. 19 paise, if already recovered from the outstanding dues of the petitioner, should be refunded to him minus Rs. 130 which the. petitioner admittedly owes to the concerned shopkeeper. If not, the said amount of Rs. 130 should be paid to the shop-keeper out of the petitioner's dues. ( 17 ) THE petitioner should, however, be censured for having misbehaved with the respondent No. 4 and the said censure should be noted in his service book. ( 18 ) THERE will be no order for costs. ( 19 ) LET a copy of this order be communicated to the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as expeditiously as possible. Rule disposed of.