ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Heard Sri D. S. P. Singh Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Srivastava appearing for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28-1-2000 removing the petitioner from service and the orders dated 3-8-2000 and 24-4-2001 dismissing the appeal and revision of the petitioner. The petitioner was working as constable in the Railway Protection Force and at the relevant time was posted at outpost Naini, Northern Railway, Allahabad. On 5-7-1999 the petitioner was on duty on the east of railway bridge at Yamuna river from 8. 00 Hours to 20. 00 Hours. 3. During his duty hours petitioner left his duty and consumed liquor and thereafter misbehaved with Chaukidar Lalai and Keyman Jagannath who were also on duty on the bridge and tried to assault him. The petitioner absented with effect from 13. 30 hours and at about 15. 30 hours he assaulted the outsider namely Pooran Chandra Tripathi at station road, Naini and broke his scooter. Preliminary inquiry was held in which the petitioner was indicated. Disciplinary inquiry was initiated by serving charge- sheet on the petitioner dated 28-7-1999. 4. The charge-sheet itself mentions the documents from serial Nos. 1 to 13 which were to be relied in the inquiry and the list of witnesses numbering eight were mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioner participated in the inquiry. 5. The inquiry proceedings started on 27th August, 1999. The doctor who had medically examined the petitioner appeared and proved his medial report, which found the petitioner under intoxication during the duty hours. Pooran Chandra Tripathi one of the witnesses appeared who was also cross examined by the petitioner. Other witnesses Sita Ram Tripathi, L. P. Singh and Satish Kumar appeared. After close of evidence of the department the Enquiry Officer on 27-8-1999 asked the petitioner that the evidence of department is complete and if the petitioner has to give any defence witness he may give their names and designation. He was asked to submit his defence till 19-9-1999. On 9-10-1999 a written application was given in which the petitioner raised grievance that he was not given documents and the statements of the witnesses were not exhibited. Reference of Rule 153. 13 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 was also made. He was asked to submit his defence till 19-9-1999. On 9-10-1999 a written application was given in which the petitioner raised grievance that he was not given documents and the statements of the witnesses were not exhibited. Reference of Rule 153. 13 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 was also made. In the application dated 9-10-1999 itself on the back side there are four questions and answers given by the petitioner to them. The first question is as to whether before completion of the inquiry petitioner made any request for any document, the answer given by the petitioner was "no". The petitioner was asked as to whether during inquiry he has given any representation which was also replied in negative. One of the questions was also that whether during the examination of witnesses petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine. The answer was specifically given that the opportunity was given for cross-examination. The inquiry officer after completing the inquiry submitted the report holding the charges proved against the petitioner. On the basis of inquiry report the dismissal order was passed against which appeal was filed which too, has been rejected. 6. Sri D. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders contended that in the inquiry there is violation of Rule 153. 12 and 153. 13 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. Sri D. S. P. Singh, further contended that the punishment awarded against the petitioner is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges leveled. He contended that the dismissal in the facts of the present case was wholly disproportionate to the allegations. Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced original record pertaining to the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. Sri Srivastava submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity including the opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. He further contended that the petitioner actually cross-examined some of the witnesses. He further contended that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner which enlisted the documents referred to in the charge-sheet and at no point of time the petitioner prayed for copy of any document. Sri Srivastava further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the inquiry by not exhibiting the documents. He further submitted that the petitioner himself in the inquiry has admitted the charges and stated that he does not pray for any copy of document. Sri Srivastava further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the inquiry by not exhibiting the documents. He further submitted that the petitioner himself in the inquiry has admitted the charges and stated that he does not pray for any copy of document. 7. I have considered the submissions of Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first submission of Sri D. S. P. Singh is on the strength of Rules 153. 12 and 153. 13. Rules 153. 12 and 153. 13 of the Railway Protection Force Act are extracted below: "153. 12. All evidence shall be recorded, in the presence of the party charged by the Inquiry Officer himself or on his dictation by a scribe. Cross-examination by the party charged or the fact of his declining to cross-examine the witness, as the case may be, shall also be recorded. The statement of each witness shall be read over to him and explained, if necessary, in the language of the witness, whose signature shall be obtained as a token of his having understood the contents. Statement shall also be signed by the Inquiry Officer and the party charged. Copy of each statement shall be given to the party charged who shall acknowledge receipt on the statement of witness itself. The Inquiry Officer shall record a certificate of having read over the statement to the witness in the presence of the party charged. 153. 13 Documentary exhibits, if any, are to be numbered while being presented by the concerned witness and reference of the number shall be noted in the statement of the witness. Such documents may be admitted in evidence as exhibits without being formally proved unless the party charged does not admit the genuineness of such a document and wishes to cross- examine the witness who is purported to have signed it. Copies of the exhibits may be given to the party charged on demand except in the case of voluminous documents, where the party charged may be allowed to inspect the same in the presence of Inquiry Officer and take notes. " 9. From perusal of Rule 153. 12 it is clear that the requirement of the rule is that all the evidence should be recorded in the presence of the party charged. " 9. From perusal of Rule 153. 12 it is clear that the requirement of the rule is that all the evidence should be recorded in the presence of the party charged. In the present case all evidence has been recorded in the presence of the petitioner which fact is amply proved by the signatures of the petitioner at the end of every statement. Rule Further provides that the cross-examination of the witnesses by the party charged or the fact of his declining to cross-examine the witness, as the case may be, shall also be recorded. From the original record produced by the respondent it is clear that the witness Pooran Chandra Tripathi was cross-examined by the petitioner which is contained in the copy of the statement. Two specific questions were asked by the petitioner to Pooran Chandra Tripathi. With regard to other witnesses the Enquiry Officer had cross-examined the witnesses and with regard to cross-examination of the witnesses by the petitioner there is mentioned "nil". The reading of the statement clearly shows that the cross-examination was not done by the petitioner with regard to other witnesses. The statements contain the factum of cross-examination by the petitioner as "nil". Each statement has been signed by the petitioner and the inquiry Officer. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied cross-examination of the witnesses. The rule further requires that the statement shall be read over and explained in the language of the witnesses whose signatures shall also be obtained. The signatures of the petitioner have already been obtained. The statements were recorded in Hindi. Petitioner is well versed with Hindi Language and which is clear from the application dated 9-10-1999 of the petitioner. There is full compliance of Rule 153. 12. 10. Now comes another submission based on Rule 153. 13 which provides that the documentary exhibits are to be numbered while being presented by the concerned witness and reference of the number shall be noted in the statement of the witness. In the present case in the charge-sheet the documents which were to be relied in the enquiry have been enlisted from items Nos. 1 to 13. Although in the record it is not proved that it was exhibited and any exhibited number was given although all the documents are brought on the record and were listed in the charge-sheet. In the present case in the charge-sheet the documents which were to be relied in the enquiry have been enlisted from items Nos. 1 to 13. Although in the record it is not proved that it was exhibited and any exhibited number was given although all the documents are brought on the record and were listed in the charge-sheet. The petitioner in his statement has stated that he has never been asked for any document during course of the enquiry. The petitioner in his statement recorded on 27-8-1999 has clearly stated that he has read the list of the documents and list of witnesses and has understood the same. He further stated that the charge is accepted but still the enquiry be held. There is clear statement by him that he does not require any document. The said statement is at page 44 of the enquiry file dated 27-8-1999 which has been duly signed by the petitioner. Copy of said statement has also been received by the petitioner. All the documents which have been relied in the enquiry were mentioned in the charge- sheet. The medical report was one of the document which has already been proved by the doctor in his statement. The mere fact that the exhibit number on the said report was not mentioned, is not of much relevance. The petitioner having himself stated that he does not require any copy of document it is not open for him to complain that the documents were not exhibited. No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by not exhibiting the document in the enquiry. The veracity of documents have never been challenged. In view of the facts of the present case no benefit can be taken by the petitioner nor the enquiry can be said to have been conducted in violation of principle of natural justice or any provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. Rules 153. 12 and 153. 13 are procedural provisions which contain rules to ensure fair enquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The enquiry against the petitioner has been held in consonance with the principles of natural justice after affording opportunity to him. The submission of the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in violation of provisions of Rules 153. 12 and 153. 13 and the enquiry is vitiated cannot be accepted. 11. The enquiry against the petitioner has been held in consonance with the principles of natural justice after affording opportunity to him. The submission of the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in violation of provisions of Rules 153. 12 and 153. 13 and the enquiry is vitiated cannot be accepted. 11. The next submission which has been pressed by the Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment against the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge. The charge as contained in the charge-sheet is that during duty hours the petitioner left duty place, took liquor and thereafter indulged in altercation with the members of the public and also misbehaved with the Chaukidar. The ground on which the High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment as repeatedly laid down by the apex Court is, that the High Court can interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is disproportionate to the charge only when it shocks the conscience of the Court. The charge against he petitioner cannot be said to such charge on which punishment of dismissal can be held to be such which shocks the conscience of the Court. The test laid down by the apex Court in B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. , reported in 1996 (1) LBESR 424 (SC) : (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749, is to the following effect: "18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to consider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. " 12. In the disciplinary inquiry charges were found proved against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority on the basis of the proved charge had awarded punishment of removal from service. " 12. In the disciplinary inquiry charges were found proved against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority on the basis of the proved charge had awarded punishment of removal from service. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not persuaded to interfere with such punishment in the facts of the present case. 13. The appellate authority has also considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and has concurred with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has also found that the petitioner during the inquiry never asked for any particular document from the Inquiry Officer. The appellate authority also found that the statements of witnesses were recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner. The revisional authority has also examined the contentions of the petitioner and found no merits in the revision. 14. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .