ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal from services passed by respondent No. 4. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to the nature of misconduct, it appears that the punishment imposed upon the present petitioner is grossly disproportionate and therefore, the order of punishment deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that departmental appeal, which is preferred by the present petitioner, has been decided without assigning any reasons. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact, no misconduct has been committed by the petitioner as alleged by the respondents and hence also, the order of dismissal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that there is no procedural illegality in conducting enquiry against the present petitioner. Moreover, looking to the nature of misconduct, the quantum of punishment awarded to the present petitioner is absolutely just and proper and cannot be said to be grossly disproportionate or shockingly disproportionate. Moreover, looking to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner has admitted that he was in drunken condition as on the date of misconduct and he is in habit of taking alcohol. The petitioner is serving in Jharkhand Military Force and therefore, once he is working in a disciplined force, such misconduct cannot be tolerated and hence, the services of the present petitioner has been rightly dismissed. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly, for the reasons that the petitioner was working as a Cook in Jharkhand Military Force and had committed misconduct on 20th September 1999 when he was in a drunken condition and refused to prepare food when he was directed to prepare food. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for medical examination and the doctor has also found the petitioner to have consumed alcohol. It has also been stated in the charge sheet that on the alleged date of misconduct, he has absconded and therefore, he was suspended with effect from 20th September 1999. His misconduct effects the discipline of the Jharkhand Military Force. 5. It has also been stated in the charge sheet that on the alleged date of misconduct, he has absconded and therefore, he was suspended with effect from 20th September 1999. His misconduct effects the discipline of the Jharkhand Military Force. 5. It also appears from the facts of the present case that several witnesses have been examined by the respondent-authorities and looking to their evidences, the charges levelled against the present petitioner have been proved. It cannot be said that report of inquiry officer is based upon no evidence. This report has been given on 31st May 2000, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition. 6. Looking to this enquiry report, it appears that the conclusion of the enquiry officer is based upon the evidence on record and, thus, no illegality has been committed in holding the enquiry by the enquiry officer. Moreover, the present petitioner has accepted his guilt. 7. It further appears from the facts of the case that even a second show cause notice was also given to the present petitioner before imposing punishment. Thus, procedure, according to law, have been followed by the respondents before imposing punishment. 8. It further appears from the facts of the present case that a second show cause notice was given, as stated in Annexure-2. After giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon the present petitioner. No reply was given to the second show cause notice by the petitioner, as stated at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition. Now the only question is left out before this Court is to evaluate the quantum of punishment. 9. It appears that the present petitioner, who was working in Jharkhand Military Force i.e. a Disciplined Force as a Cook, refused to obey the order of his superior to cook the food. More so, he was even in a drunken condition, as supported by the doctor, who has also found the petitioner in drunken condition. Moreover, he has remained absconded on the date of misconduct i.e. on 20th September 1999. 10. Looking to the aforesaid facts and also looking to the evidences on record, it cannot be said that the punishment inflicted upon the present petitioner is shockingly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate. In police force such type of behaviour will affect the discipline of the police force. 10. Looking to the aforesaid facts and also looking to the evidences on record, it cannot be said that the punishment inflicted upon the present petitioner is shockingly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate. In police force such type of behaviour will affect the discipline of the police force. Not to obey the order of the superior officer and that too going into a drunken condition while on duty, when an employee is working in a police force, will adversely affect the discipline of the police force. In such circumstances, punishment inflicted upon the present petitioner cannot be lebelled as grossly disproportionate punishment. Even the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, there is also concurrent findings of facts. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no illegality has been committed by the respondents in dismissing the present petitioner from his services. There is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.