Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. .2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined duty as a C.R.P.F. personnel at Avadi. Subsequently, he was posted at the Airport at Agarthala, Thirupura. A Departmental enquiry had been ordered against the petitioner, as he was charged with an act of disobedience of an order, under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. It was alleged that the petitioner, on 13. 1999, had consumed liquor outside the line, despite the clear order that no one is to leave the camp without the prior permission of his superior officers, who were the competent authorities to grant such a permission. The second charge against the petitioner is that he had committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force, under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. It was alleged that he had abused and assaulted his Officer Commandant, S.M.Jogindar Singh, without any provocation. The petitioner had denied both the charges. 3. The petitioner has stated that the prosecution had not shown anything to prove that the petitioner had consumed liquor and had assaulted the Officer Commandant using abusive words. Further, when it has been stated that the bridge, through which one had to pass to leave the camp, was in disrepair. It would not have been possible for the petitioner to have left the camp to consume liquor. 4. The petitioner had further stated that the Officer Commandant, S.M.Jogindar Singh, had fallen down on his own under the influence of liquor. Even though the list of witnesses provided by the prosecution contained only six names, one Swatandoss was added as a witness contrary to the established procedures. Except Swatandoss, all the other witnesses had clearly stated that they had not seen the occurrence. When the witness Joseph K.Andulna was asked as to why the petitioner had not been taken to the medical officer to ascertain whether he was under the influence of liquor, it was stated that the bridge was under disrepair. While so, it could not have been possible for S.M.Jogindar Singh to have gone to the Hospital to obtain a medical report. In spite of lack of evidence, the petitioner had been dismissed from service, by an order, dated 111. While so, it could not have been possible for S.M.Jogindar Singh to have gone to the Hospital to obtain a medical report. In spite of lack of evidence, the petitioner had been dismissed from service, by an order, dated 111. 1999, under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, read with Rule 27(A) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The dismissal order passed by the respondent is illegal and it has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that, on 18. 1999, the petitioner, who was working as a Security-Aid of officiating Officer Commandant, S.M.Jogindar Singh, went out of the Coy line after the evening roll call without the permission of the competent authority and he had consumed country liquor. This is the misconduct on the part of the petitioner and therefore, a charge had been framed against him. 6. While the petitioner was returning at 20.45 hours, one Swatan Das had noticed the petitioner coming into the barrack. When he had asked the petitioner as to where he was coming from, the petitioner had asserted that no one can question him. He had also abused Swatan Das. On hearing the commotion, the Officiating Officer Commandant, S.M.Jogindar Singh, had come out of his room and he had tried to pacify the petitioner. The petitioner had abused S.M.Jogindar Singh and Swatan Das. SI Joseph Kandolna had also come to the place and the petitioner had continued to abuse everyone around him. The petitioner was smelling of liquor and he was under its influence. He had disobeyed the orders of his superior officer, S.M.Jogindar Singh. The petitioner had also assaulted S.M.Jogindar Singh and due to the assault, S.M.Jogindar Singh had fallen down and fainted. In such circumstances, a memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner, on 9. 1999. The charges were framed and a departmental enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and on his conclusion he had submitted a report, on 210. In such circumstances, a memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner, on 9. 1999. The charges were framed and a departmental enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and on his conclusion he had submitted a report, on 210. 1999, holding that the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force. Pursuant to the said enquiry report, an office order had been issued, on 111. 1999, declaring the petitioner as a person unfit to be retained in the Disciplined Force like the Central Reserve Police Force. Consequently, he was dismissed from service, under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, read with Rule 27(a) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. .7. It has also been stated that the medical examination of the petitioner could not be held, on 18. 1999, due to the broken wooden bridge between Kupilong and Udaipur. Therefore, the petitioner could not be moved during the night due to the fact that it was an insurgency infested area. There was no medical facility available at Kupilong when the incident had taken place. Therefore, the medical examination was conducted, on 18. 1999, by the Medical Officer, Public Health Centre, Maharani. The allegation of the petitioner that S.M.Jogindar Singh had also consumed liquor and that he had abused the petitioner using vulgar words is totally false. The prosecution witnesses had clearly stated in their evidence that S.M.Jogindar Singh had not consumed liquor, as alleged by the petitioner. 8. It has been further stated that S.M.Jogindar Singh had also been provided with the medical assistance only, on 18. 1999. Neither the petitioner nor his witnesses had stated in their statements that S.M.Jogindar Singh was also under the influence of liquor. The impugned order, dated 111. 1999, dismissing the petitioner from service, is proper and valid, as it has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant factors. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice and the procedures established for the said purpose. The order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is based on the facts and the findings in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice and the procedures established for the said purpose. The order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is based on the facts and the findings in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The charges leveled against the petitioner were found proved beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner cannot complain, since he was given ample opportunity to put forth his case during the enquiry proceedings. Since it was established that the petitioner had committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, under Section 11(1) of the the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and since the misconduct is grave in nature, he was dismissed from service. Further, the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order, dated 111. 1999. In such circumstances, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 9. The main contentions of the petitioner are that the the petitioner should have been examined by the medical officer, on 13. 1999 itself to prove the charge that he had consumed liquor having left the Coy line and that the charge that he had assaulted the Officer Commandant S.M.Jogindar Singh, had not been proved beyond doubt. It was also contended that sufficient reasons have not been shown by the respondent for the delay in medically examining the petitioner. 10. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order, dated 111. 1999, issued by the respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service. .11. There was sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer for him to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had left the Coy line, without the prior permission from the officers competent to grant such permission and to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had consumed liquor outside the Coy line. The more serious charge against the petitioner is that he had assaulted the higher Officer Commandant, S.M.Jogindar Singh, under the influence of alcohol. The said charge has also been proved by sufficient evidence. The more serious charge against the petitioner is that he had assaulted the higher Officer Commandant, S.M.Jogindar Singh, under the influence of alcohol. The said charge has also been proved by sufficient evidence. Unlike in a criminal case where every charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in a domestic enquiry the rigour of proof required is of a lesser degree. A charge could also be held proved based on the preponderance of probabilities. However, in the present case, it is seen that sufficient evidence was available to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Central Reserve Police Force, being a disciplined force, such indiscipline and misconduct from the personnel of the force cannot be tolerated. 12. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the respondent, dated 111. 1999, dismissing him from service, cannot be interfered with. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.