JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was awarded two punishments by virtue of annexure-5 dated 31.10.2002, one was that his increment for six months was withheld and the other was that the period of absence i.e. 11.8.2001 to 7.11.2001 was adjusted against half pay leave. 3. The background to imposition of the said punishments is that the petitioner, who is a constable with Bihar police, was deputed as a personal security to Ex-MLA, namely, Shyam Sundar Singh Dhiraj. The Senior Superintendent of Police however, during the Panchayat Election 2001 directed him, like other police officers and constables to report to New Police Line for appropriate deployment during the period of election. Petitioner refused to report back when his salary was withheld. Later on, order of suspension has been passed. Only after such action the petitioner came before the authority but, by that time decision had been taken to initiate a departmental proceeding for indiscipline and insubordination. 4. A notice of enquiry with the set of charges had been served upon him as would be evident from annexure-2. Petitioner responded to the said notice as contained in annexure-4 but the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty and the punishments mentioned above in terms of annexure-5 came to visit the petitioner. Annexure-5 is therefore being challenged along with the order passed in appeal i. e. the order of D.I.G. Central Range (annexure-7) in the writ application. 5. Submission of learned counsel is that he had no information or knowledge about reporting to authorities back. He had absolutely no idea about the order of suspension also. He only knew the facts later on, when he went to the police line to draw salary when he was handed over the memo of charges to which he offered explanation. Other submission is that no proper opportunity was given to him during the course of enquiry. 6. Since the nature of punishments is minor therefore full-fledged enquiry cannot be held. Petitioner was given opportunity to give explanation including his conduct and annexure-4 does not offer satisfactory explanation for not following the command of superior. He may have been deputed to be the personal security of Ex- MLA but he was very much under the command and control of his superior as he was not a personal bodyguard to the Ex-MLA. Petitioner was given opportunity to give explanation including his conduct and annexure-4 does not offer satisfactory explanation for not following the command of superior. He may have been deputed to be the personal security of Ex- MLA but he was very much under the command and control of his superior as he was not a personal bodyguard to the Ex-MLA. Obviously the petitioner did not want to take onerous responsibility which may have entailed due to deployment in Panchayat election and he was cozy and comfortable in the company of Ex-MLA. 7. Even otherwise the punishments which have been come to be imposed against the petitioner are the least which could have been done. The petitioner has certain responsibility as a person belonging to the uniformed service and disciplined force towards the State and not to an individual. The punishments are neither harsh nor excessive and even this Court is not convinced with the bona fide of the explanation of the petitioner. Even the other submission that the appellate authority has not applied his mind or given his comment to the memo of appeal is misplaced because after all the punishments imposed on the petitioner are minor. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been awarded minor punishments when for the charge of disobedience a police personnel like the petitioner is liable for dismissal. In support of his averment he relies on a decision rendered in the case of Sakaldeep Singh vrs. Union of India (PLJR 1998(2) 378.The principle laid down in the decision has some reflection and the Court is in agreement with the submission of the State counsel. 9. In the totality no case for interference on that count is made out. The Court only observes that the petitioner has probably walked away lightly probably he deserves. 10. This writ application is dismissed.