Order The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioner upon whom charge-sheet was served because of several misconducts and ultimately, inquiry was conducted, charges as per inquiry report have been proved and punishment of removal has been inflicted upon the petitioner and thereafter, departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed and the order of removal was confirmed. Therefore, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who was working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force, Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi against an order passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit A.S.G., Patna dated 16th January, 2010 as well as against the order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Airport (E&NE) Headquarters, Kolkata, which are at Annexure-2 and at Annexure-4, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Constable and he was served charge-sheet whereby, five charges were levelled against the petitioner. These charges are at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the witnesses examined by the respondents, charges are not proved and the inquiry report is based upon no evidence and therefore, the order of punishment of removal passed by the respondents-Commandant, C.I.S.F., Patna dated 16th January, 2010, which is at Annexure-2, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Likewise, the appellate authority has not appreciated that on the basis of no evidence, the inquiry officer has, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW-2 and PW-4 have given their depositions in favour of the petitioner. This matter has also not been properly appreciated by the inquiry officer nor by the disciplinary authority nor by the appellate authority and therefore also, the orders at Annexures-2 and 4 deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the nature of misconduct, the punishment of removal inflicted upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and hence also, the order of removal of the present petitioner from the services of C.I.S.F deserves to the quashed and set aside. 4. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the nature of misconduct, the punishment of removal inflicted upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and hence also, the order of removal of the present petitioner from the services of C.I.S.F deserves to the quashed and set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that looking to the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition, they are very serious in nature. Moreover, earlier on five occasions, minor penalties and on one occasion, a major punishment have been inflicted upon the petitioner. Despite these earlier six times punishments, the petitioner has continued his mis-behaviour and committed misconduct again and again and therefore, a detailed charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was conducted in detail and the respondents have examined as many as 37 witnesses and detailed report has been given by the inquiry officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has taken a decision of removal of the present petitioner from his services. The order of removal passed" by the Commandant, C.I.S.F, Patna dated 16th January, 2010 is at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. Adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and there is no procedural defect in holding the inquiry. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been suspended under Rule 37 of the C.I.S.F Rules (Minor Penalty). Five times, this petitioner has already been punished whereas under Rule 36 (Major Penalty), the petitioner has already been punish once. Thus previously also, six times the petitioner has committed proved misconducts. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner being a member of the disciplinary force has misbehaved on more than half a dozen times and looking to the nature of misconducts which are proved, the quantum of punishments inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate punishments. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied upon the depositions of PW-15, PW-17, PW-24, PW-26 and PW27 which are referred in paragraph nos. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied upon the depositions of PW-15, PW-17, PW-24, PW-26 and PW27 which are referred in paragraph nos. 22, 24, 31, 33 and 34 of the order at Annexure-2, passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F., Patna and submitted that looking to the• nature of misconduct appropriate punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the order of removal of the present petitioner, passed by the disciplinary authority at Annexure-2 as well as this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in a departmental appeal, passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Airport (E&NE) Headquarters, Kolkata dated 30th March, 2010, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition. During hearing of the appeal also,' adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and a detailed reasoned order has been passed by the appellate authority and therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly on the following facts and reasons: (i) The petitioner was working as Constable with the Central Industrial Security Force, Birsa Munda Airport at Ranchi. (ii) The petitioner has committed several misconducts as per the allegations by the respondents and therefore, a detailed charge-sheet was issued upon the petitioner, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition whereby, five charges have been levelled against the petitioner. So far as charge no. 1 is concerned, it is alleged that on 21st April, 2009, this petitioner has abused the Deputy Commandant at the time of Roll Call in presence of other persons. So far as charge no. 2 is concerned, it is alleged that on 26th April, 2009, the petitioner refused to accept the suspension order thereafter, he was called upon by the Deputy Commandant in his office at the time of Roll Call during evening hours and in rough language; it was not obeyed. So far as charge no. 3 is concerned, it is alleged against the present petitioner that from 26th April, 2009, the petitioner was suspended and thereafter, he was not available in the barrack up to 30th April, 2009. So far as allegation no. So far as charge no. 3 is concerned, it is alleged against the present petitioner that from 26th April, 2009, the petitioner was suspended and thereafter, he was not available in the barrack up to 30th April, 2009. So far as allegation no. 4 is concerned, though the petitioner was given a letter of suspension on 26th April, 2009, which was received by the petitioner on 27th April, 2009, but, correct date was not inserted and at that time also, rough language was used by the present petitioner and so far as charge no. 5 is concerned, earlier' five times the petitioner was punished under Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules for minor punishments whereas once the petitioner was punished under Rule 36 for major punishment under Central Industrial Security Force Rules. Despite this, there is no improvement in the behaviour of the present petitioner. These charges levelled against the petitioner are as per Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition. (iii) Thereafter, detailed inquiry was conducted. Respondents have examined as many as 37 witnesses. Charge no. 1 is held to have been proved. Charge no. 2 is held to have been proved. Charge no. 3 is held to have been proved. Charge no. 4 is also held to have been proved and fully established on the basis of the witnesses examined by the respondents and charge no. 5 is also proved as per order at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. Looking to the witnesses examined by the respondents, there are enough evidences establishing the proof of the aforesaid charges. I have carefully gone through the depositions of these witnesses examined by the respondents. (a) The deposition of PW-15, which is referred in paragraph 22 of the order at Annexure-2, reads as under:- "PW-15, SI/Exe (now Insp/Exe) Rajeev deposed that on 26.04.09 at about 18.30 hrs he came in the Roll Call alongwith Asstt. Commandant Const. Suresh Prasad who was standing aside the Roll Call was asked to attend the Roll Call. But he refused adding that he will not obey any order nor• receive any letter and added that "You can do whatever you want. Get me murdered get me hanged. Why I am being suspended? Have I stolen something whether I am a Gunda or I have raped any girl send me home get me arrested or dismissed. But he refused adding that he will not obey any order nor• receive any letter and added that "You can do whatever you want. Get me murdered get me hanged. Why I am being suspended? Have I stolen something whether I am a Gunda or I have raped any girl send me home get me arrested or dismissed. I am mad get me treated. Whether an Ass can be made father. I will not meet DC nor bow before his He is an Ass. An Ass can't an officer by putting star". I will come back from court. I have seen many AC. DC bowing before Const My brother has been dismissed. I told him I am coming on being dismissed. I will not meet DC nor talk to him as he is a Dog. I will come/go as per my choice. One can talk to a man but not to• an Ass. Const. Suresh Prasad continued arguing with AC using such un-parliamentary language even though AC tried to convince/con sol him and refused to attend the Roll Call. " (b) Looking to the deposition of PW-17-Constable Amit Kumar, who was present at the time of Roll Call on 26th April, 2009, it appears that the present petitioner refused to attend the second Roll Call on being asked by the head of the petitioner. Paragraph 24 reads as under:- "PW-17 Const. Amit Kumar, who was present in the Roll Calion 26.4.2009, also confirmed that Const. Suresh Prasad refused to attend 2nd Roll Call on being asked by CHM on the order of RI, stating that he will not attend Roll Call nor receive any letter. Again at 18.30 hrs. on being asked by the Asstt. Comdt. to attend 2nd Roll Call, Const. Suresh Prasad refused to attend adding further "You can do what you want. Get me murdered get me hanged. Why I am being suspended? Have I stolen something or am I a Gunda or I have raped any girl send me home get me arrested or dismissed. I am mad get me treated. Whether an Ass can be made father. I will not meet DC nor bow before his leg. He is an Ass. An Ass can't be an officer by putting star". I will come back from Court. I have seen many Ass. DCs bowing before Constables. My brother has been dismissed. I am mad get me treated. Whether an Ass can be made father. I will not meet DC nor bow before his leg. He is an Ass. An Ass can't be an officer by putting star". I will come back from Court. I have seen many Ass. DCs bowing before Constables. My brother has been dismissed. I told him I am coming home on being dismissed. I will not meet DC nor talk to him as he is a Dog. I will come/go as per my choice. One can talk to a man but not to an Ass." (c) Looking to the deposition of PW24, who is Constable- PK Pradhan, he has also stated in detail about the rough behaviour of the present petitioner and the language used by the present petitioner. Paragraph 31 reads as under:- "PW-24 Const. P.K. Pradhan who was present in the Roll Call on 26.4.09, also confirmed that Const. Suresh Prasad refused to attend 2nd Roll Call on being asked by CHM on the order of RI stating that he will not attend Roll Call nor receive any letter. Again at 18.30 hrs on being asked by the Asstt Comdt. to attend 2nd Roll Call, Const. Suresh Prasad refused to attend adding further "You can do what you want. Get me murdered get me hanged why I am being suspended? Have I stolen something am I a Gunda or I have raped any girl send me home get me arrested or dismissed. I am mad get me treated. Whether an Ass can be made father. I will not meet DC nor bow before him. He is an Ass. An Ass can't an officer by putting star". I will come back from court. I have seen many ACs. DCs bowing before Constables. My brother has been dismissed.1 told him I am coming on being dismissed. I will not meet DC nor talk to him as he is a Dog. I will come/go as per my choice. An Ass can't an officer by putting star". I will come back from court. I have seen many ACs. DCs bowing before Constables. My brother has been dismissed.1 told him I am coming on being dismissed. I will not meet DC nor talk to him as he is a Dog. I will come/go as per my choice. One can talk to a man but not to an Ass." (d) I have also gone through the deposition given by PW-27, who is Assistant Commandant namely A.K. Pandey, who has also given detailed deposition and has also narrated in detail about the behaviour of the present petitioner on 26th April, 2009 as well as rough language used by the present petitioner against his superior-Paragraph 34 of the order passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F., Patna reads• as under:- "PW-27, Asstt. Commandant, A.K. Pandey deposed in his statement that on' 26.4.09 Const. Suresh Prasad was called in Coy. Office to receive the suspension order bearing No. (856) dated 26.4.09, Const. Suresh Prasad came in the Coy. Office but refused to receive the suspension letter on the plea that he wanted the letter in Hindi. On that Insp/Exe. SK Sinha verbally translated the contents of the letter in Hindi and advised the Charged Official to receive, the letter. Inspite of that, Const. Suresh Prasad refused to receive the letter mentioning that if anybodY wants to give him poison whether he is bound to swallow it. Charged official also asked the reason for his suspension. After being informed about the above fact PW-27 asked RI to call Const. Suresh Prasad ill his office. But Const. Suresh Prasad refused to come. At about 18.15 hrs RI asked Const. Suresh Prasad to receive the Hindi version of the suspension order as per his request but Charged Official again refused to receive the letter. On this PW-27 asked RI to take Roll Call again. At about 1830 hrs. PW-27 alongwith C.I.W. In charge Rajeev Sharma came to the unit line and saw that Const. Suresh Prasad was standing aside of Roll Call. On this PW-27 asked him to assemble in Roll Call but the Charged Official refused and told that he will• obey any of my orders nor receive any letter adding further you do what you can. Get me hanged murdered. Why I am being suspended? What wrong I have done? Theft. Suresh Prasad was standing aside of Roll Call. On this PW-27 asked him to assemble in Roll Call but the Charged Official refused and told that he will• obey any of my orders nor receive any letter adding further you do what you can. Get me hanged murdered. Why I am being suspended? What wrong I have done? Theft. am I a Gurida or I have raped any girl shoot me get me arrested get me dismissed. I am mad. get me treated whether an Ass can be made father. I will not bow before any Ass. What you want. I will come back from court. I have seen many ACs. DCs bowing before Constables. My brother has been dismissed. I told him I am coming on being dismissed. I am being defamed as thief. I will not meet DC nor talk to him as he is a' Dog. I can beg but will not meet that Dog. I will come/go as per my choice. One can talk to a man but not to an Ass. Ass can't be an officer by putting star. PW-27 added that Const. Suresh Prasad misbehaved with has using un-parliamentary language. Thereafter the suspension order was pasted on the Almirah of Const. Suresh Prasad as per order of PW-27. Later PW-27 came to know that Const. Suresh Prasad had left the unit line for Ranchi Hospital at 19.10 hrs, after mentioning the time as 18.10 hrs. In the out pass register and returned to the unit line at 20.20 hrs and again left the unit line by Cycle at 20.45 hrs wearing uniform without any permission from anybody. At about 21.10 hrs. PW-27 came to know that Const. Suresh Prasad has left his suitcase opened on his cot. Charged official I did not return to the unit line on that night. Accordingly, Charged official was searched in the Guru Nanak Hospital, Ranchi and Hatia Rly. Stn. and Khadgara Bus stand on 27.4.09 but could not be traced. On 27.4.09 at about 19.20 hrs. CO came to the Control Room and received hr. No. (223) dated 26.04.09 regarding his suspension from Control Room I/c but endorsed the date as 26.04.09 instead of 27.4.09 in the receipted copy. When asked by the Control Room I/c to endorse actual date of receipt CO refused and left the place. On 27.4.09 at about 19.20 hrs. CO came to the Control Room and received hr. No. (223) dated 26.04.09 regarding his suspension from Control Room I/c but endorsed the date as 26.04.09 instead of 27.4.09 in the receipted copy. When asked by the Control Room I/c to endorse actual date of receipt CO refused and left the place. PW-27 further stated that the CO absented himself from unit line 27 to 29.04.09. On 30.04.09 at 10.40 hrs. Const. Suresh Prasad (CO) came to Control Room wherein PW-27 tried to convince him and advised to stay in the unit line but CO refused to accept his advice and left the area. On 1.5.09 Const. Suresh Prasad reported at Control Room for allowing him in unit line." (e) Similarly, looking to the deposition of PW-37, who is Constable-Laljee Kumar has also given a detailed deposition. Paragraph 35 of the order passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F, Patna reads as under:- "PW-37, Const. Laljee Kumar deposed in his statement that on 21.04.09 during evening Roll Call Const. Suresh Prasad involved himself in hot arguments with CHM Surendra Singh While he was passing order saying "Whether RI or DC will bring my medicine, Food. I have been permitted to take food in my residence, I will take food there only". When CHM asked him his food timings, Const. Suresh Prasad (Charged Official) replied there is no specific timings for taking food adding that he is leaving unit line making entry in the out pass register then what is the need to take permission. After that CHM handed over the charge of Roll Call to SI/Exe M.B. Mahato then Const. Suresh Prasad started arguing with SI/E M.B. Mahato saying that "You speak according to your level. I have been advised medical rest by the Doctor, why should I bow before you. You are not a doctor, you mind your business". Const. Suresh Prasad (Charged Official) further told "Dy. Commandant was telling that he will suspend Suresh Prasad. But I am ready to be dismissed." Looking to the aforesaid depositions as well as the depositions of the several other witnesses, which were examined by the respondents, the charges levelled against the present petitioner are proved. No error has been committed in holding departmental inquiry against the present petitioner. Commandant was telling that he will suspend Suresh Prasad. But I am ready to be dismissed." Looking to the aforesaid depositions as well as the depositions of the several other witnesses, which were examined by the respondents, the charges levelled against the present petitioner are proved. No error has been committed in holding departmental inquiry against the present petitioner. There is no procedural defect in holding the inquiry and adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. Looking to the evidences on record, it cannot be said that the inquiry officer's report is based upon no evidence on the contrary, the departmental inquiry officer's report is absolutely in consonance with the depositions of the witnesses examined by the respondents. (iv) Looking to the order passed by the disciplinary authority, in detail, there is description about the depositions of the witnesses examined by the respondents and no error has been committed by the disciplinary authority in awarding the punishment of removal upon the petitioner. (v) Looking to charge no. 5 previously also, this petitioner has committed several misconducts. The petitioner has been punished on five different occasions for minor punishments. These punishments have been described in paragraph 40 of the order, passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F., Patna, which read as under:- "Regarding Charge No.5, PW-28 SI/Min Gemma Beck deposed that as per service records of the Charged Official, he has been awarded 5 minor punishments and one major punishment, the details of which are given below:- (i) Awarded "CENSURE" vide Asstt. Commandant, ONGC Nazira, Final Grder No. CISF/ONGC(N)/RS/22/02/177 dated 24.08.02 for his absence from duty post (PW-28/Exb-P-1). (ii) Awarded the punishment of "Pay "fine equivalent to 03 days pay" vide Asstt. Commandant ONGC Nazira Final Order No. CISF/ONGC(N)/RS/Disc/ 22/05/34 dated 14.1.05 for his overstaying on leave (PW-28/Exb.-P-2). (iii) Awarded "CENSURE" vide Asstt. Commandant, CISF Unit BHEL Hyderabad Final Order No. V-15015/ CISF/BHEL(R)/Min-20/Adm/06/4133 dated 19.8.06 for overstaying on joining time (PW-28/Exb-P-3). (iv) Awarded the punishment of" "Pay fine equivalent to 3 days pay" vide Asstt. Commandant CISF Unit BMAP Ranchi Final Order No. 15014/ CISF/BMAP/Disc/37/SP/08/434 dated 27.6.08 for overstaying on joining time (PW-28/Exb-P-4 ). (v) Awarded the punishment of "Reduction of pay from Rs.6750 to Rs.6490 for two years vide DIG Airport (E & NE) Kolkata Appellate Order No. V-11013/(6)/Appeal-12/SP/Adm.IV/ 08/4309 dated 18.12.08 for his misbehavior with and manhandling Const. Lalji Kumar (PW-28/Exb-P-5). (vi) Awarded "CENSURE" vide Asstt. (v) Awarded the punishment of "Reduction of pay from Rs.6750 to Rs.6490 for two years vide DIG Airport (E & NE) Kolkata Appellate Order No. V-11013/(6)/Appeal-12/SP/Adm.IV/ 08/4309 dated 18.12.08 for his misbehavior with and manhandling Const. Lalji Kumar (PW-28/Exb-P-5). (vi) Awarded "CENSURE" vide Asstt. Commandant BMAP Ranchi Final Order No. V-15014/5SP/Disc/37/09/ 262 dated 8.5.09 for using abusive language against Control Room Officer while receiving Walkie-Talkie. (PW-28/ Exb-P-6). Even after being punished 6 times as mentioned above the Charged Official failed to correct his Conduct and behaviour and the charge is established beyond doubt." In view of the aforesaid fncts, the petitioner was also awarded one major punishment under Rule 36 of the C.I.S.F. Rules. Thus, there is no behavioural improvement in the petitioner. Looking to these misconducts and the present charges, which are already been proved as per the witnesses examined by the respondents and looking to the nature of misconducts committed by a member of the disciplinary force, which is Central Industrial Security Force at Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi, it cannot be said that the punishment of removal of the present petitioner is shockingly disproportionate punishment of the contrary, it is in consonance with the Central Industrial Security Force Rules. Though five times minor punishments have been awarded, the petitioner has not proved his behaviour. Using rough language towards the high ranking officers and that too in presence of other statts cannot be tolerated especially, when the petitioner is working as Constable in C.I.S.F. (vi) One more opportunity has been given to the petitioner to prefer departmental appeal. The petitioner has preferred departmental appeal. Again the petitioner was adequately heard by the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F., Airport (E and NE), headquarter, Kolkata and looking to the order at Annexure-4, there is full application of mind by the appellate authority also and a detailed reasoned order has been passed by the appellate authority. Not a single witness has been examined by the present petitioner though opportunity was given. Not a single witness has been examined by the present petitioner though opportunity was given. Looking to these evidences on record and looking to the nature of misconducts, which are proved and looking to the order passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F., Patna at Annexure-2 and also looking to the order at Annexure-4, passed by the appellate authority, no error has been committed by the respondents in holding the departmental inquiry and so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, as stated hereinabove, looking to the nature of misconducts and as the petitioner is working in disciplinary force namely Central Industrial Security Force, adequate punishment has been "inflicted upon the petitioner. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.