ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner, a cook in the rank of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was served with a chargesheet dated 16.10.1998 containing the following charges : ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar (U/S) of A Coy CISF Unit BSL Bokaro residing in Qtr. No. 1497 of Sector XI-C alongwith his family quarrelled with No. 89224004 Const. Harender Singh and his wife who are residing in Qtr. No. 1495 of Sector XI-C on 26.9.1998 in between 1950 hrs. to 2020 hrs. Thus he has disturbed the peace and tranquility of the housing colony. This said act on the part of cook Kamlesh Kumar amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar (U/S) of A Coy CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro misbehaved and manhandled Smt. Sunita Devi W/O Const. Harender Singh at about 2000 hrs on 26.9.98. The Act on the part of the Cook Kamlesh Kumar amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar (U/S) of "A" Coy CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro refused to vacate the quarter No. 1497 allotted to him in Sector-C and thus failed to carry out the lawful orders of the competent authority. The said act on the part of the Cook Kamlesh Kumar amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV No. 904450125 Cook Kamlesh Kumar (U/S) of A Coy CISF Unit. BSL Bokaro failed to improve his conduct inspite of awarding several punishments and continued to commit Act of misconduct and indiscipline." 3. After holding enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and ultimately the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority challenging the order of his removal from service was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court bearing CWJC No. 2800/99. As it appears from Annexure-8, i.e. the order dated 28.3.2001 passed by this Court that the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to quantum of punishment contending inter alia (a) that the punishment of dismissed from service was disproportionate to the charges and (b) that the punishnient was inflicted twice for the same charge No. 3. As it appears from Annexure-8, i.e. the order dated 28.3.2001 passed by this Court that the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to quantum of punishment contending inter alia (a) that the punishment of dismissed from service was disproportionate to the charges and (b) that the punishnient was inflicted twice for the same charge No. 3. This Court by aforesaid order remitted the matter back to the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force to determine as to whether the punishment inflicted was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and as to whether the petitioner was earlier punished for the same set of charge No. 3 or not? 4. Pursuant thereto the Inspector General, CISF, passed an order on 21.9.2001 contained in Annexure-9 to the present writ application, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which is under challenge in this application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 21.9.2001 (Annexure-9) passed by the Inspector General of CISF is in gross violation and in contravention of the order of this Court dated 28.3.2001 (Annexure-8) and that the order/directions of the High Court has not been followed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service was wholly disproportionate with the gravity of the charges, said to have to have been proved against the petitioner and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 480 . 8. On the other and, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there were several charges against the petitioner, which were found to be proved against him. In view of the gravity of charges proved, the Inspector General, CISF rightly rejected to interfere with the quantum of punishment considering the past conduct of the petitioner. Accordingly, it was submitted that the order of the Inspector General, CISF, was in inconformity with the order of this Court as passed in CWJC No. 2800/99 and, therefore, the same requires no interference by this Court. 9. In order to test the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to take notice of he charges against the petitioner. 9. In order to test the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to take notice of he charges against the petitioner. From the Articles of charges quoted in earlier paragraphs,it appears that charge No. I was that the petitioner disturbed the peace and tranquility of the housing colony by quarrelling with Constable Harender Singh and his wife, which amounted to gross misconduct and indiscipline. Charge No. II was that the petitioner misbehaved and manhandled Smt. Sunita Devi, w/o Constable Harender Singh which amounted to gross misconduct and indiscipline. Charge No. IlI was that the petitioner refused to vacate the quarter No. 1497 allotted to him and thus failed to carry out lawful order of the competent authority which amounted to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders. Charge No. IV was that the petitioner failed to improve his conduct in spite of awarding several punishments and continued to commit acts of misconduct and indiscipline. 10. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report wherein he found that the charges framed against the petitioner were true. 11. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Commandant after considering the enquiry report and the materials on record held that the petitioner being a member of disciplined armed force of the union exhibited from serious offences, quarrelled with Constable Harender Singh and his family time and again and manhandled the wife of the Constable Harender Singh and in this process he disturbed the peace and tranquility of the colony and by not carrying out the order of his competent authority from time to time, he also failed to correct himself in spite of punishment awarded to him earlier and, therefore, he was found unworthy and unfit to be a member of disciplined armed force of the Union and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority passed order for dismissal of the petitioner from service. 12. From perusal of the impugned order contained in Annexure-9 of the Inspector General of CISF, it appears that he found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority was commensurate with the gravity of the charges. The relevant extract of the findings of the Inspector General, CISF is reproduced hereinbelow : "03. 12. From perusal of the impugned order contained in Annexure-9 of the Inspector General of CISF, it appears that he found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority was commensurate with the gravity of the charges. The relevant extract of the findings of the Inspector General, CISF is reproduced hereinbelow : "03. I have carefully gone through the revision petition submitted by the petitioner particularly in the light of the direction given by the Honble Jharkhand High Court Ranchi and the relevant records held in the files. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that petitioner had created nuisance and quarrelled with Ex-Const. Harender Singh and his wife and disturbed the peace and tranquility of the housing colony. He misbehaved and manhandled Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Harender Singh and in spite of lawful orders of competent authority he refused to vacate the quarter.................. The Charge No. 3 related to the refusal on the part of the petitioner to vacate quarter No. 1497. The refusal to obey the lawful order on the part of the petitioner is serious misconduct, fraught with indiscipline and disobedience......... 0.4 Since there is no procedural lacuna in this case and the punishment awarded is commensurate with the gravity of offence, I am of the view that there is no cogent reason to interfere in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority, which are well within the ambit of justice taking gravity of offence into consideration. There is no new point for consideration hence the revision petition is REJECTED being devoid of merit." 13. From the facts noticed above, I find that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that he was punished twice for the same offence is wholly baseless. So far as the decision cited on behalf of the petitioner in the ease of Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer, (supra), I find that the same is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the aforesaid ease before the Supreme Court, it appears that the Supreme Court noticed that the delinquent was an officer of the Bank and the charges against him, at the most was regarding procedural irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. 14. In the aforesaid ease before the Supreme Court, it appears that the Supreme Court noticed that the delinquent was an officer of the Bank and the charges against him, at the most was regarding procedural irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. 14. Whereas in the present case the petitioner being a member of a disciplined armed force indulged himself in quarrelling and manhandling the wife of a Constable and he also refused to obey the lawful order of the competent authority by not vacating the quarter allotted to him and further that in past also he was awarded punishment of warning to improve his conduct but he failed to correct himself and, therefore, in my view the punishment as awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the appellate authority was fully justified. This Court does not find that the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner was in any manner disproportionate to the charges, against the petitioner. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application and thus is dismissed.