Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 31.10.1987 (Annexure-2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa (respondent no. 6) dismissing the petitioner, who was a constable and also for quashing orders dated 8.9.1988 (Annexure-4), 16.6.1989 (Annexure-5) and 22.9.1992 (Annexure-8), by which the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa (respondent no. 5), Zonal Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga (respondent no. 4) and Director General of Police, Bihar (respondent no. 3) dismissed his respective appeal, memorial and representation filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal and also for other consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a constable after due process on 24.4.1975, whereafter he continued in service and while he was posted in the district of Saharsa at Jadia Police Station, a charge was framed on 4.11.1986 (Annexure-1) by the Superintendent of Police (respondent no. 6) with respect to gross misconduct, indiscipline and behaviour not befitting the Police personnel. The allegation against the petitioner was that in the night of 31.7.1986, he abused and assaulted one Pramod Kumar Sah of Jadia Bazar in the Police Station, due to which there was a furore and when the Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police asked him to refrain from such act, the petitioner also abused them in filthy language and also that brought a bottle of wine at the Police Station and was drinking wine in the Police Station and he used filthy language against the Inspector of Police and also boasted that he would not allow the Officer Incharge to return to the Police Station. 3. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which proceeded in accordance with law including issuance of show-cause notice etc., whereafter, show-cause was submitted by the petitioner. However, it transpires that three witnesses deposed in the case including the Inspector of Police, who fully supported the charges but the petitioner cross-examined only one of the witnesses although full opportunity was given to him to cross-examine other witnesses. However, when he was asked to produce his witnesses, he produced one Havildar Rajeshwar Yadav, who only stated that no such occurrence had taken place in his presence. However, when he was asked to produce his witnesses, he produced one Havildar Rajeshwar Yadav, who only stated that no such occurrence had taken place in his presence. It was found that the said Havildar was posted in the said Police Station only till June, 1986 whereafter he only came there once on 22.12.1986, whereas, the occurrence was of 31.7.1986 and hence there was no occasion for the said witness to be present in the Police Station on the date and time of the occurrence according to his own submissions. The other witness of the petitioner refused to depose. 4. Again notice was issued and opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his show cause by 25.8.1987 but when he did not file his second show cause the time was extended to 10.9.1987. But even then he did not submit his show cause although the information was sent to him and he received the same, which was proved by the materials on record. In the said circumstances, the enquiry officer found that the charges against the petitioner were fully proved by oral and documentary evidence and he was unable to validly deny the same by any reliable evidence. 5. In the said circumstances, by impugned order dated 31.10.1987 the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa, dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 1.11.1987. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa, on 19.11.1987, but the said appeal was dismissed by the said authority on 8.9.1988 (Annexure-4). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a memorial before the Zonal Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga, who also dismissed the same on 16.6.1989 (Annexure-5), whereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the Director General of Police, which was dismissed by the said authority on 22.9.1992 (Annexure-8). 6. From the perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is quite apparent that the authorities concerned considered the matter alongwith the evidence, both oral and documentary, as well as the grounds taken by the petitioner in detail and thereafter the said orders were passed and after having lost before all the aforesaid forums, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging all the aforesaid orders of the authorities concerned. 7. 7. The petitioner has raised the points that the prosecution witnesses were not allowed to be cross-examined by him although he made specific prayer with respect thereto, whereas, some of the prosecution witnesses examined in his absence and that the order to submit show cause against the recommendation of the Conducting Officer for his dismissal was not given to him and the punishment given to him was not commensurate with the charges levelled against him. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had cross-examined only one of the witnesses and did not cross-examine other witnesses of the department although sufficient time was granted to him. Furthermore, the petitioner was on leave for some period, but during that period no witness was examined. However, even after expiry of the leave period, he remained absent for long without any petition for further leave and, thus, he intentionally absented from enquiry and since the departmental proceeding was continuing and was to be decided without any undue delay, the authority concerned was justified in continuing with the enquiry. Furthermore, it is also shown from the records that twice time was granted to the petitioner to submit his show cause by 25.8.1987 and 10.9.1987 and service of notice was also proved by the materials proving his endorsement on the receipt. Hence, no such illegality or irregularity in the proceeding can be validly proved by the petitioner. 9. Furthermore, the Police force is a disciplined force and has to remain a disciplined force and any serious act of indiscipline should not be tolerated on two counts; firstly that such persons are not fit for being retained in the force and secondly that lenient view in such matters may encourage others to commit similar acts of indiscipline. The charges levelled against the petitioner and the materials on record, which were fully discussed in the impugned orders, clearly show that the petitioner had committed acts of gross misconduct, negligence and indiscipline not befitting a Police personnel and hence the punishment given to him was quite commensurate with the acts committed by the petitioner. 10. For the reason aforementioned, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders of the authorities concerned and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.