Devinder Gupta, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure-P. 6)of compulsory retirement dated 21. 6. 1991 passed by the Commandant, the order (Annexure-P-8) dated 3. 11. 1993 passed by the Deputy Inspector General dismissinghis appeal and the order (Annexure-P-7) dated 22. 3. 1994 passed by the Inspectorgeneral dismissing his revision. ( 2 ) THE challenge, inter alia, is on the grounds that extreme punishment ofcompulsory retirement amounts to termination of service; the petitioner still had 22years of service; punishment is dis-proportionate to the alleged offence; thecommandant was not the Competent Authority to have passed the order ofcompulsory retirement, as he was not the Appointing Authority. It is also allegedthat the Deputy Inspector General was the Appointing Authority in the petitioner scase and not the Commandant. As such only the Deputy Inspector General couldhave passed the order of compulsory retirement. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and been taken through theentire record. ( 3 ) THE petitioner on being selected for the post of Security Guard in Centralindustrial Security Force (for short "c. I. S. F. ") remained posted at various places. He was charged by the Commandant, C. I. S. F. Unit, HEC, Ranchi under Rule 34 ofthe Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969; (hereinafter referred to as "thec. I. S. F. Rules") on the charge that he abused his senior officer while under theinfluence of alcohol on 4. 8. 1990 thereby creating nuisance. Charge memo wasissued on 26. 9. 1990 and after due inquiry punishment of compulsory retirementwas inflicted upon him through the impugned order passed by the Commandant. Appeal and revision were dismissed. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was dealt under Rule 34of the C. I. S. F. Rules and was awarded the punishment as per Rule 31 (c) of C. I. S. F. Rules. The petitioner was appointed by the Assistant Inspector General and wassubsequently confirmed in the rank of constable w. e. f. 6. 12. 1980 by the Groupcommandant, Deepak, 13, Nehru Place. According to the respondents, the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the Commandant and the order of compulsory retirement was also passed by the Commandant,c. I. S. F. Unit, HEC, Ranchi. The charge memo was served under Rule 34. Shri Sant Ram, Inspector/exe. 12. 1980 by the Groupcommandant, Deepak, 13, Nehru Place. According to the respondents, the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the Commandant and the order of compulsory retirement was also passed by the Commandant,c. I. S. F. Unit, HEC, Ranchi. The charge memo was served under Rule 34. Shri Sant Ram, Inspector/exe. wasappointed as Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry in accordance with lawand submitted his report dated 8. 5. 1991 staling that charges stand proved. Copy ofthe inquiry report dated 8. 5. 1991 was duly supplied to the petitioner through letterdated 10. 5. 1991. He was asked to make representation against the inquiry report. Thesame was received by the petitioner on 16. 5. 1991. Reply was submitted on 21. 5. 1991. After duly considering the reply the impugned order was passed by the Commandant. Respondents have also stated that the petitioner was not dealt with under Rule37 of the Rules and, therefore, show cause notice was not necessary. ( 5 ) AS per the recruitment rules, it is the Commandant who is the Appointingauthority and accordingly the Commandant has to be the Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case the Disciplinary Authority being the Commandant, who is alsothe authority which awarded penalty of compulsory retirement, there is no lacunain the impugned order. The mere fact that letter (Annexure-PI ) dated 20. 6. 1974 wassent to the petitioner for and on behalf of Deputy Inspector General will not makethe Deputy Inspector General as the Appointing Authority. Reference has to be made to the rules that at the relevant time for the post of Security Guard, who wouldbe the Appointing Authority. Respondents have pointed out that it was theassistant Inspector General, C. I. S. F. Head Quarters who had appointed thepetitioner, who was the Commandant and, therefore, it was the Commandant alonewho could have inflicted punishment. The punishment was inflicted by the Commandant. From the record, we find that appropriate rules were duly followed. Thepetitioner was afforded due opportunity during the proceedings, which wereconducted. On completion of the inquiry, he was duly served with the copy ofreport and was called upon to make representation, which he did. It was dulyconsidered and punishment was inflicted. Respondents also considered the proportionality of the sentence and rightly took a decision that on such a grave charge ofabusing senior officers while under the influence of liquor punishment wasadequate. On completion of the inquiry, he was duly served with the copy ofreport and was called upon to make representation, which he did. It was dulyconsidered and punishment was inflicted. Respondents also considered the proportionality of the sentence and rightly took a decision that on such a grave charge ofabusing senior officers while under the influence of liquor punishment wasadequate. The challenge to the impugned order of punishment was on variousgrounds. Each ground was duly considered and answered by the authorities,namely. Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority andthe same were duly turned down with reference to the record. One of the ground?raised by the petitioner was that medical certificate had not been issued on properform and was not bearing serial number. The same was also duly examined. It wasobserved that the mere fact that medical certificate had not been issued on a letterhead of the concerned doctor will make any difference since the same stood dulyproved. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, there being no legal lacuna in the procedure, which has beenfollowed by the respondents and the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority beingthe possible view on the evidence produced, no interference is called for in thispetition, which is dismissed.