H. R. MALHOTRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, serving in the Central Reserve Police Force while returning in their vehicles after the collection of the dak, on 19th january, 1991 were ambushed by a militant attack who threw bombs on the petitioners and also fired heavily by using AK-47 rifles. In reaction to the attack, the petitioners also resorted to firing and frustrated the militant s attack. The petitioners were charged for committing an act of gross misconduct and a departmental enquiry commenced against them but in the departmental enquiry report dated 14th December, 1991 all the petitioners were exonerated. However, a different conclusion was reached by the disciplinary authority who considered the said enquiry report and held the petitioners guilty of indiscriminate and excessive firing and sentenced the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to punishment of 15 days confinement to quarter guard and stoppage of increment for one year to petitioner No. 4 and completely exonerated petitioner No. 3. The said punishment was undergone by the petitioner No. 1, 2 and 4. However, on 29th july, 1992, the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector Hyderabad, d. R. Kartikeyan (hereinafter referred to as the IGP) suo motu passed an order whereby the petitioners were held guilty of indiscriminate and excessive firing and their punishment was enhanced to dismissal from service. This writ petition challenges the said order of the IGP, D. R. Karthikeyan. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case is as under:- (a) The petitioners were at the relevant time serving in Central reserve Police Force. These petitioners were posted in 42nd Battalion of central Reserve Police at Sri Nagar (Jandk) in January 1991 at Seraiwalla area where the situation had not been peaceful at all for the last several years. (b) On 19th January, 1991, the petitioners were detailed on an escort duty for collection of dak in two vehicles. When the petitioners were returning in their vehicles after the collection of the dak they were ambushed by a sudden and large scale attack by the militants. The militants threw bombs on the escort party travelling in a truck and a bus and it was followed by heavy firing from sophisticated modern and automatic weapons including AK 47 rifles from their hidden positions. The militants threw bombs on the escort party travelling in a truck and a bus and it was followed by heavy firing from sophisticated modern and automatic weapons including AK 47 rifles from their hidden positions. The petitioners reacted sharply in order to save the lives of the members of the escort party and the Government property, and thus resorted to firing in retaliation without loss of time. Since the militants resorted to heavy firing including firing of bombs , therefore, taking into account of the situation at that time the petitioners fired from their running vehicles. In this way they frustrated the unlawful object of the militants. (c) The respondent No. 2 to 4/crpf felt that the petitioners had resorted to indiscriminate and excessive firing from the weapons and they did not exercise restraint while dealing with the terrorists attack and therefore, the petitioners were served with the office memo dated 20th september, 1991 apprising the petitioners that the departmental enquiry was proposed to be held against the petitioners on the charges that the members of the escort party including the petitioners committed an act of gross misconduct which was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force under section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949. The charge dated 20/9/1991 reads as under:-"all the eight delinquents (as listed under head ?introduction?) were posted/attached with HQ/coy. 42 Bn CRPF for duties. On 19/1/91 they were detailed as escort party of two dak collection vehicles Regn. No. DBL-68231 CRPF no. 18-Cheton and DBP 8167/minibus of the unit. These vehicles used to go daily to APO for despatch/collection of dak. When on 19/1/91 AN These two dak collection vehicles were returning after completion of the duty some identified militants attacked these vehicles throwing a bomb followed by firing from automatic weapons in Magarmal Bag area Srinagar at about 1415 hrs. The aforesaid personnel to counter the militants firing on them, instead of judiciously replying to militants fire resorted to indiscriminate and excessive firing from their weapons issued to them for duty from running vehicles over a stretch of about 1 KM on the main road (Silk factory Road) passing through magarmal area. The aforesaid personnel to counter the militants firing on them, instead of judiciously replying to militants fire resorted to indiscriminate and excessive firing from their weapons issued to them for duty from running vehicles over a stretch of about 1 KM on the main road (Silk factory Road) passing through magarmal area. The action of each of them in this incident was therefore, prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force and thereby each of them committed an act of gross misconduct as a member of the force U/s 11 (1) of c. R. P. F. Act, 1949. " ( 3 ) THE departmental enquiry commenced. Shri D. C. Dey 2nd in - command of 42 Battalion in the CRPF was appointed as the enquiry Officer who held the enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioners. The enquiry officer having examined numerous witnesses, finally submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 14th December, 1991 holding that the charges framed against the petitioners were not proved and thus the enquiry officer exonerated all the petitioners. The relevant portions of the Enquiry report exonerating the petitioners are as follows:-" (a) All the eight delinquents travelling in one tone (Tata 610) truck and one minibus on bonafide govt. duty on 19/1/91, had resorted to firing from their respective weapons in retaliation to militants attack on their vehicles with bomb and firing from automatic weapons like AK-47 assault rifles, in area saraibala Lanecrossing at about 1415 hrs. on 19/1/91 and in self defence against the said attack so that they could come out of the area safely with the vehicles and their own lives. (b) As natural to human being retaliatory firing done by each of the delinquents was different from that done by the other, as degree of reaction to a situation/incident by each individual differs. None of the delinquents had opened firing at his own but did so only after attack by militants. While four of the delinquents fired less number of rounds, remaining four fired more than 20 Rds. Each, depending on the reaction under their prevailing situation, by each of the delinquents. c) The term used in the article of charge that the delinquents had resorted to ?indiscriminate? and ?excessive? firing are relative in nature. While four of the delinquents fired less number of rounds, remaining four fired more than 20 Rds. Each, depending on the reaction under their prevailing situation, by each of the delinquents. c) The term used in the article of charge that the delinquents had resorted to ?indiscriminate? and ?excessive? firing are relative in nature. The retaliation by each individual to militants attack was bound to be different depending on nature of the individual concerned, his inability of judgment and assessment of a particular situation that prevails at a particular point of time and under a particular sequence of events and condition, coupled with the sense of self preservation of each individual. d) The prosecution has not been able to conclusively prove that each and all the delinquents had resorted to indiscriminate and excessive firing under the then prevailing situation and condition. As already analysed while assessing the evidence here-in-before it is doubtful whether the injuries suffered by civilians/members of public in Iqbal Park area was solely due to the firing by the delinquents (occupants) from moving vehicles. The assessment of prosecution evidence does clearly indicate that other vehicles of forces including those of C. R. P. F. Vehicles had moved through the area during that period occupants of such vehicles might have had resorted to firing from such moving vehicles. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses stated (PW 10 and 13) that the delinquents had fired in areas in between Saraibala and Naaz crossing and not after Naaz crossing in Iqbal Park area. e) The delinquents without producing any documents and witness in their defence, could prove from statements of Pws that they had resorted to firing only after their vehicles were attacked by the militants with bombs and firing in retaliation and self defence, in areas between Saraibala Lane crossing and naaz crossing. The documents cited by prosecution as evidence particularly the coi proceedings, prosecution exhibits (4) indicate contradictions as analysed under head ?assessment of evidence?. The three signals cited by prosecution as documents to prove the charge (prosecution exhibits 1 to 3 are not found to be any proof as such the charge framed against the delinquents, as the exhibit (1) was the signal giving names of four of the delinquents who had fired 13 Rds. 28 rds. 35 X Rds. And 29 rounds each during the incident and they were asked to be placed under suspension pending enquiry. 28 rds. 35 X Rds. And 29 rounds each during the incident and they were asked to be placed under suspension pending enquiry. The exhibits (2) and (3) are two signals from IGP S/s C. R. P. F. To 42 Bn C. R. P. F. conveying administrative instructions mentioned above under suspension and asking for progress of the DE, respectively. f) The prosecution has not been able to prove that these eight delinquents while moving in two unit vehicles (one-ton truck and one minibus) had resorted to firing from their respective individual weapons indiscriminately over a stretch of about one KM on the main road. Instead as per statements of prosecution witnesses, these delinquents had, in all probabilities fired over a stretch of road between Saraibala Lane over and Naaz crossing area of the main road. g) The statements of Addl. D. C. And S. H. O. as recorded in the C. O. I. proceedings (prosecution exhibit No. 4) casts doubt whether the two vehicles of 42 Bn C. R. P. F. ( one ? one ton and one minibus ) carrying these eight delinquents, actually the two C. R. P. F. Vehicles occupants of which had fired indiscriminately and excessively in the area of Iqbal Park on the South of Naaz crossing, on the eastern side of main road, due to the discrepancies noted in their statements as analysed in Assessment of evidence. " ( 4 ) THE Disciplinary Authority after considering the record of the departmental enquiry and the report of the enquiry Officer came to a different conclusion from the Enquiry Officer and found that the petitioners were guilty of having fired indiscriminately which was not necessary in the context of the situation prevailing at that time and thus awarded punishment of 15 days confinement to quarter guard with punishment drill to petitioners No. 1 and 2 and punishment of stoppage of increment for one year to petitioner No. 4. The petitioner No. 3 was however exonerated completely by the disciplinary authority. The relevant portions of the disciplinary authority s order are as under:-"however considering the situation where fire by the militants caused no damage to vehicles or personnel it is felt that the number of rounds fired by ct. E. U. Jolley, Ct. Jamshed Khan, Ct. Amrit Singh and Ct. The relevant portions of the disciplinary authority s order are as under:-"however considering the situation where fire by the militants caused no damage to vehicles or personnel it is felt that the number of rounds fired by ct. E. U. Jolley, Ct. Jamshed Khan, Ct. Amrit Singh and Ct. K. G. Gopi is comparatively in excess and they failed to exercise restraint as they have fire 28 rounds 35 rounds 29 rounds and 20 rounds respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I therefore find all the above 4 persons Ct. E. U. Jolly, Ct. Jamshed Khan, ct. Amrit Singh and Ct. K. G. Gopi guilty for resorting to excessive and indiscriminate firing thereby committing an act of misconduct as members of the force, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force U/s 11 (1) of C. R. P. F. Act, 1949. I therefore award punishment of 15 days confinement to q/guard with punishment drill wef. 23/1/92 to 6/2/92 to No. 850828358 Ct. Jamshed khan, No. 841140917 Ct. Amrit Sigh and No. 841220083 Ct. K. G. Gopi. Since no. 850784672 Ct. E. U. Jolly has already been removed from service wef. 2/1/92 in another case his case will be decided later if and when he join the service after appeal if any. No. 700521285 NK Chandi Prasad who was the escort party Commander also failed to exercise proper command and control as a result of which some of the escort party personnel resorted to excessive and indiscriminate firing. Hence, no. 700521285 NK Chandi Prasad is found guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty in his capacity as escort commander which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force U/s 11 (1) of C. R. P. F. Act, 1949. He is therefore awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. No. 700210993 NK Ganesh Oran, No. 850780835 Ct. B. K. Singh and No. 730420263 lnk S. B. /ahamed have fired 2 round 8 rounds, and 9 rounds respectively in self defence which is outsided quite reasonable in such a situation and hence they are not found guilty. No. 700521245 NK Chandi Prasad No. 841140917 Ct. Amrit Singh and no. 850828358 Ct. Jamshed Khan are released from suspension w. e. f. 23. 1. 92. No. 700521245 NK Chandi Prasad No. 841140917 Ct. Amrit Singh and no. 850828358 Ct. Jamshed Khan are released from suspension w. e. f. 23. 1. 92. Period of suspension w. e. f. 16/2/91 to 22/1/92 will be treated as such and they will not be entitled to anything more than what they have already drawn as subsistence allowance during the above period. "after detailed scrutiny of the Departmental Enquiry proceedings and findings, I find that 4 of the escort personnel i. e. No. 850784672 Ct. E. U. Jolly No. 841140917 ct. Amrit Singh, No. 850828358 Ct. Jamshed Khan and No. 841220083 Ct. K. G. Gopi have fired 20 rds. or more with their weapons. Firing by the militants had not caused any damage to the personnel as well as the vehicles in which these personnel were travelling and firing of 20 rds. or more by the delinquents in self defence is certainly excessive and indiscriminate. It is more so because they fired such large number of rounds without aiming at the militants who could not be apotted since the militants were firing from the houses in the area. It is of course not possible to ascertain if firing by the escort personnel had cause any death/injury to the civilians since the firing by escort personnel was without aim and from lying position on the body of the vehicles and firing was going on from all the directions by the militants as well as other security personnel deployed on the ground and moving in vehicles. Considering all aspects of the situation these personnel ought to have exercised restraint and controlled fire in self defence. I, therefore, find all the above four persons guilty for resorting to excessive and indiscriminate firing thereby committing an act of misconduct as members of the Force U/s 11 (1) of C. R. P. F. Act, 1949. I, therefore, award the punishment of 15 days confinement of Q/guard with punishment drill to No. 850828358 Ct. Jamshed Kha, No. 841140917 Ct. Amrit Singh and No. 841220083 Ct. K. G. Gopi. Since No. 850784672 Ct. E. U. Jolly has already been removed from service with effect from 2. 1. 92 in another case, his case will be decided later if and when he join the service after appeal if any. Jamshed Kha, No. 841140917 Ct. Amrit Singh and No. 841220083 Ct. K. G. Gopi. Since No. 850784672 Ct. E. U. Jolly has already been removed from service with effect from 2. 1. 92 in another case, his case will be decided later if and when he join the service after appeal if any. No. 700521285 nk Chandi Prasad who was the escort party Commander also failed to exercise proper command and control of the escort party personnel as a result of which some of the escort party personnel resorted to excessive and indiscriminate firing. Had he exercised required command and control on these personnel excessive firing would have been avoided. Hence No. 700521285 NK Chandi Prasad is found guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty in his capacity as escort commander which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force U/s 11 (1) of C. R. P. F. Act, 1949. No. 700521285 NK Chandi Prasad is therefore award the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year. Such stoppage of increment as ordered above will not effect his future increments. No. 700210993 nk Ganesh Oran, No. 850780835 Ct. B. K. Singh and No. 730420263 LNK S. B. /ahamed have fired 2 round 8 rounds, and 8 rds respectively in self defence which is considered quite reasonable in such a situation. Hence No. 700210993 NK Ganesh oran, No. 850780835 Ct. B. K. Singh and No. 730420263 LNK S. B. /ahamed are not found guilty. No. 700521285 NK Chandi Prasad, 841140917 Ct. Amrit Singh and 850828358 ct. Jamshed Khan are released from suspension with effect from 23. 1. 92. Period of suspension will be treated as such in r/o No. 700521285 NK Chandi Prasad, 850828358 Ct. Jamshed Khan and 841140917 Ct. Amrit Singh and they will not get anything more than what has already been paid to them. ? (underlining supplied) ( 5 ) IT is further the case of the petitioners that though they were not guilty at all yet being members of disciplined force they accepted the verdict of the disciplinary authority and underwent punishment so awarded by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner also did not prefer any appeal against the disciplinary authority to the next higher authorities i. e. , the deputy Inspector General of Police as in these circumstances they did not want the issue to linger on any further. The petitioner also did not prefer any appeal against the disciplinary authority to the next higher authorities i. e. , the deputy Inspector General of Police as in these circumstances they did not want the issue to linger on any further. The petitioners joined their duties after undergoing the punishment awarded to them by the disciplinary authority and soon thereafter they were transferred from Srinagar to to Assam. The petitioners were, however, taken by surprise when they suddenly received the suo motu notice of the proposed punishment of dismissal dated 29-6-1992 passed by the Inspector General of Police Southern Sector Hyderabad Shri d. R. Karthikeyan whereby the petitioners were sought to be awarded punishment by the disciplinary authority which was now proposed to be enhanced to that of dismissal from service. The relevant portions of the IGP s order proposing the dismissal of the petitioners from service are as follows.- under the powers vested in me vide rule 29 (d) of C. R. P. F. Rules, 1955, I called for the D. E. Proceedings and reviewed the final orders passed by the Commandant 42 Bn C. R. P. F. , I have gone though the entire D. E. proceedings and find that the gravity of offence committed by the delinquents is very serious. The punishments awarded to the following personnel are not commensurate with the gravity of offence committed. i) 700521285 NK Chandi Prasad ii) 841140917 Ct. Amrit Singh iii) 841220083 Ct. K. G. Gopi i propose to enhance the punishment awarded to the above three personnel to that of ?dismissal from service?. No. 730420263 L. NK S. B. Ahmed was the Guard Commander in respect of the rear vehicle i. e. Mini Bus, which was party to effective firing which killed most of the civilians. Thus he has resorted to indiscriminate and excessive firing from the weapon issued to him for duty. I, therefore, propose to award the punishment of dismissal from service to No. 730420263 L. NK S. B. Ahmed. They are hereby given an opportunity to submit their written representation if any against the award of proposed punishment within 15 days of receipt of this order by them. Any representation made by them shall be considered by the undersigned before passing orders in the matter. They are hereby given an opportunity to submit their written representation if any against the award of proposed punishment within 15 days of receipt of this order by them. Any representation made by them shall be considered by the undersigned before passing orders in the matter. In case, the above mentioned personnel fail to make any representation within 15 days of receipt of this order by them, it will be presumed that they have no representation to make and orders shall be liable to be passed ex-parte. ( 6 ) THE petitioner no. 1 K. G. Gopi in his reply to the show cause notice had inter alia pleaded that he had 9 years of unblemished service. The said plea of petitioner No. 1 in reply to the show cause notice dated 29th June 1992 proposing to enhance the punishment by the I. G. P Shri Karthikeyan reads as under :-"that I am innocent and have not committed any misconduct under Section 11 (1) of c. R. P. F. and have not fired excessive shorts and have restrained self from making excessive firing. I have acted as per the situation on spot. As member of the force I alongwith other colleagues acted as per law and have not killed any civilian or injured any civilian. I being innocent which is established by the Enquiry Officer in his findings. I have about 9 years service (unblemished) at my back and I seek justice from your goodself. " ( 7 ) PURSUANT to the show cause notice the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 24th August,1992 was passed under powers vested in the said IGP and its relevant portions read as follows :- i have carefully gone through their replies to the show cause notice alongwith the D. E. proceedings. None of them has brought out any new facts deserving re-consideration of the proposed punishment. Aforesaid NK Chandi prasad who was the over-all Guard Commander of both the vehicles not only fired 13 rounds indiscriminately from his sten but also failed to exercise proper command and control over his subordinates who indulged in indiscriminate and unprovoked firing. Similarly, both the sides Cts. Amrit Singh and K. G Gopi fired 29 and 20 rounds respectively indiscriminately causing heavy casualties to the civilians. They being the members of the force could have tactfully controlled the situation by restraining themselves from indiscriminate firing. Similarly, both the sides Cts. Amrit Singh and K. G Gopi fired 29 and 20 rounds respectively indiscriminately causing heavy casualties to the civilians. They being the members of the force could have tactfully controlled the situation by restraining themselves from indiscriminate firing. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion, after consideration of the D. E. proceedings, replies to the show cause notice dated 29. 6. 92 and other connected records, that the said NK Chandi Prasad, Cts. Amrit Singh and K,g Gopi committed very servious delinquency and that the punishments awarded to them by commandant, 42 Bn c. R. P. F. are not commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by them. Therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me vide rule 29 (d) of C. R. P. F. Rules, 1955, the punishment of 15 days confinement to Quarter Guard with punishment drill awarded to aforesaid Ct. Amrit Singh and Ct. K,g Gopi and the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect awarded to aforesaid NK Chandi Prasad by the Commandant, 42 Bn C. R. P. F. vide his order no. P. VIII-10/91-42-EC-2 dated 23. 1. 92 are hereby set aside, and I award the punishment of dismissal from service to aforesaid No. 700521285 NK Chandi prasad, No. 841140917 Ct. Amrit Singh and No. 841220083 Ct. K. G. Gopi of 42 Bn c. R. P. F. from the date of receipt of this order by each of them. No. 730420263 LNK S. B. Ahamed who was the Guard Commander of the personnel in the rear vehicle (minibus Regn. No. DBP-8167) also fired 8 rounds indiscriminately from the weapon issued to him. However, the disciplinary authority i. e. Commandant, 42 Bn CRPF exonerated him from the charge. Since he was also a party to the blameworthy act, show cause notice proposing to award the punishment of dismissal from service was served on him vide order No. R- xiii-14/92-Adm-I dated 29. 6. 92. I have carefully gone through the reply dated 19. 7. 92 submitted by him. He has also brought out the same facts stated by other three personnel, in his reply to the show cause notice. 6. 92. I have carefully gone through the reply dated 19. 7. 92 submitted by him. He has also brought out the same facts stated by other three personnel, in his reply to the show cause notice. In his case also my conclusions as at para 5 above holds good and I, therefore, award the punishment of dismissal from service to No. 730420263 LNK S. B. Ahamed, from the dated of receipt of this order by him. (underlining supplied) ( 8 ) NOT only petitioners No. 1,2 and 4 but petitioner No. 3 was also completely exonerated by the disciplinary authority. We have looked into the complete record including the pleadings in order to appreciate if this is a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. Infliction of punishment is normally the domain of the disciplinary authority or its higher authorities in the armed forces or in para military forces. The Courts ordinarily would not interfere unless circumstances so warrant the interference by way of judicial review as imperative. This is one such case where the conscience of the court has been shocked. The petitioners who were soldiers in the CRPF showed exemplary courage as is evident from the report of the enquiry officer who had occasion to examine the witnesses who had actually witnessed the militants attack and retaliation by the petitioners. As noticed, the militants had laid ambush on a large scale. There was a bomb attack followed by firing from AK 47 rifles by the militants. The petitioners retorted swiftly and if the petitioners had not retorted at the appropriate time it could have turned into a ugly and bloody situation. It is not a case where the petitioners were found guilty of dereliction of duty. It is a case where according to the respondent they should have exercised restraint and should not have resorted to exercise firing. A bare reading of the evidence of the departmental enquiry where number of witnesses were examined leads us to an inescapable conclusion that far from being punished, the petitioners deserve to be rewarded. The petitioners, who without caring for their lives, managed to thwart the militant s attack which attack was quite severe in nature. Many lives could have been lost if the militants had not been dealt with in the manner they were dealt with by the petitioners. The petitioners, who without caring for their lives, managed to thwart the militant s attack which attack was quite severe in nature. Many lives could have been lost if the militants had not been dealt with in the manner they were dealt with by the petitioners. This Court after having appraised the evidence of the witnesses finds that the militants who suddenly started firing from their hidden positions not only with bombs but with A. K. 47 rifles, were rightly dealt with by the petitioners. The disciplinary authorities perhaps seems to have swayed away by the number of rounds used by these petitioners. This is clear from the fact that some of the co-delinquents who fired 8 rounds and 2 rounds were exonerated as their response was found commensurate with the provocation occasioned by the militants attack. However, the petitioner who fired 28,35,29 and 20 rounds respectively were dismissed. In our view both the disciplinary authorities and the I. G. P. purportedly exercising his powers under rule 29 (d) of the CRPF rules, 1955 have been unnecessarily swayed by the number of rounds fired in face of an ambush by the militants. In face of an attack by the militants by bombs and AK-47 rifles, the undue importance given to the number of rounds fired by the petitioner makes the impugned order unconscionable and bordering on perversity. In fact the charge dated 20th September, 1991 was in respect of indiscriminate and excessive firing and yet the IGP unjustifiably refers to and is swayed by what according to him were heavy casualties to the civilians. There was no charge of heavy casualties to the civilians. Instead of being rewarded, the petitioners had to suffer some imprisonment at the hands of disciplinary authority and then finally the wholly unconscionable dismissal order by the superior authorities i. e. the igp. The impugned order is cryptic in nature. If such orders are sustained, our soldiers cannot be expected to guard the country in a fearless manner. One can not in a situation of attack by bomb and AK 47 rifles by the militants weigh in a golden scale the number of rounds required to deal with the situation. The impugned order is cryptic in nature. If such orders are sustained, our soldiers cannot be expected to guard the country in a fearless manner. One can not in a situation of attack by bomb and AK 47 rifles by the militants weigh in a golden scale the number of rounds required to deal with the situation. The non application of mind by the I. G. P. is evident from the fact that he has not even referred to the plea of the petitioner No. 1 that he had a clean past record of 9 years. The non application of mind of the IGP is again evidenced by the fact that he found the petitioners guilty of causing heavy casualties to the civilians which was not even the charge against the petitioners. The non application of mind by the IGP is further evidenced by the para 12 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents which states that troops deployed on road duty and the re-inforcement party that was sent to the area after the incident also fired from their weapons. Thus, we fail to understand that if the troops of the re-inforcement party who came to the area after the incident took place also resorted to firing how could the petitioners who fired from a moving vehicle at the time of attack be held guilty of indiscriminate and excessive firing. We are of the view that the punishing authority has dealt with the case on surmises and on the basis of the number of rounds fired by the petitioners. We are of the firm view that this case was handled properly at the level of the enquiry Officer. In fact the enquiry Officer was the best person to have weighed the evidence as the evidence was recorded in his presence. It seems to us that the disciplinary authority though fully in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer nevertheless thought of awarding minor punishment to the petitioners and that too without any material available on record which punishment was accepted by the petitioners, as it was minor in nature and did not affect their career. What weighed with the IGP who passed an order of dismissal is not evident. What weighed with the IGP who passed an order of dismissal is not evident. We, however, cannot desist from observing that the order passed by the IGP was too harsh in nature and totally uncalled for which not only ruined the career and livelihood of the petitioners but would also bring down the morale of the jawans of CRPF. The order of the DIG is cavalier, flippant and discloses a total non application of mind. We do not see any justification at all for the sentence awarded by the IGP in the impugned order of dismissal. The past record of the petitioners has not been examined at all and an order of dismissal has been passed straightway. The IGP has also not discussed the reasoning of the enquiry report at all. The counsel for the respondent even in this court was unable to show to us anything in the past record of the petitioners which warranted dismissal straightway. This is another factor which demonstrates the casual approach of the IGP. Such orders are likely to affect the confidence of the security forces and are likely to make their responses in a critical situation rather timid. We are satisfied that the order of the enquiry officer and at best the disciplinary authority did not warrant interference. In any event the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the alleged offence. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order resulting in allowing the writ petition with no order as to costs and direct the reinstatement of the petitioners with all consequential benefits payable within six weeks and in any case not later than 15th March 2006. .