JUDGMENT Nagendra Rai. J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner quashing the order dated 19.2.1994 passed by the Commandant. Central Industrial Security Force (for short C.I.S.F.). Unit O.N.G.C. (ER). Najira District-Sibsagar, Assam, removing the petitioner from service after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, order dated 12.5.1995, passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal against the said order and the order dated 7.12.1995 passed by the revisional authority dismissing the revision against the appellate order. Copies of the said orders have been appended as Annexures 3, 2 and 1, respectively, to the writ application. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in C.I.S.F. In the year 1980. He served the department at different places and on 25.8.1983 while he was posted at Najira, he was asked by the Inspector, C.I.S.F. Unit. O.N.G.C., D. Coy to go for an out station duty at production well 339, situated at Dhakari Siga Gaon near Lakowa, but he refused to carry out the order of the Coy Commander concerned. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner was suspended. Thereafter, memo of charges was sent to the petitioner on 4.9.1993 through S. I.-D. David but the petitioner refused to accept the same and asked Mr. David to return the same to the Coy Commander. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with regard to two charges as mentioned below- "Article-I An act of gross indiscipline, disobedience and dereliction of duty on the part of No. 802220428 Constable S.D. Singh of CISF unit ONGC (ER) Nazira in that on 25.8.93 while he was ordered to move for further duty at production well no. 339 an out post of Sibsaqar Coy, he flately refused to carry out the orders of the Coy, Commander concerned thus violated section 10 (a) of CISF Act, 1968. Article-II Gross indiscipline and unbecoming of Member of Force in that no.802220428 Constable S.D. Singh of CISF Unit, ONGC (ER) Nazira, Sibsagar Sector flately refused to accept the lawful office letter issued in his name on 4.9.93 at about 1/30 hrs. in his full presence of mind and sound health which is violation of section 19 (a)of CISF Act 1968. 3. in his full presence of mind and sound health which is violation of section 19 (a)of CISF Act 1968. 3. From a perusal of the orders, as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3, it appears that in the departmental proceeding, witnesses were examined and other materials were brought on record and the disciplinary authority had come to the conclusion that the petitioner disobeyed the lawful order of the authority and also refused to receive the memo of charge, which was sent to him by the Coy Commander through S.I.-D. David. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the punishment removal from service has been awarded against the petitioner, which has been affirmed in appeal and, there after, in revision as stated above and they have been challenged in this writ application. 4. So far as the finding of misconduct is concerned, from the perusal of the orders, as contained in Annexures 1, 2, and 3, it appears that the disciplinary authority as well as the superior authorities have gone into the matter and they have found that the petitioner had disobeyed the valid order of the superior authority and also refused to accept the memo of charges, which was sent to him through S. I.-D. David and, thus, violated the provision of section 10(a) of the CISF Act, 1968. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the finding arrived at by the authorities with regard to the misconduct. However, it is submitted that in the facts of this case, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate and excessive. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the C.I.S.F. is a disciplined force and the petitioner did not carry out the valid order passed by a superior authority and in such a case any leniency in the matter of punishment will encourage indiscipline and as such no case for interference with regard to punishment is made out. 7. Now, the only question, that renains for consideration, is as to whether he punishment awarded to the petitioner in his case is disproportionate warranting inerference by this court. 7. Now, the only question, that renains for consideration, is as to whether he punishment awarded to the petitioner in his case is disproportionate warranting inerference by this court. Now, the law is Nell-settled that this court can interfere even n the matter of award of punishment when the same is shocking to conscience or on the facts of the case it appears to be disproportionate or excessive to the allegations made against the delinquent. In this case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is a member of the disciplined force. Superior officer asked him to go on duty at a particular place, but he refused the same. Later on, the memo of charge was sent to him through S. I.-D. David, but he even refused to accept the same. This conduct of the petitioner shows a height of indiscipline. He has been appointed for carrying out the duties assigned to him by the superior officer, if he does not carry out the duties, then, in my view, that amount to a gross indiscipline and any leniency in such matter as regards punishment will encourage indiscipline and will give impetus to other members of the disciplined force to disobey the order of the superior authorities. At this stage, I may mention the case of Union of India vs. Giriraj Sharma, reported in A.I.R. 1994 S. C. 215, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission. The facts of the said case are quite different. There, the member of C.R.P.F. was on leave and he overstayed even after rejection of application for extension of leave and in this context the apex court stated that there was no wilful intention to flout the order and also stated that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and as such the case was ordered to be considered for minor punishment. That case has no application to the instant case. Here, as stated above the conduct of the petitioner shows highest degree of indiscipline on the part of the petitioner and it is not such a case, where the punishment imposed upon the petitioner can be said to be excessive arbitrary or disproportionate justifying interference by this court. 8. In the result, I find no merit in this application and it is, thus, dismissed. 8. In the result, I find no merit in this application and it is, thus, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.