JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Saikia 1. Heard Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Rokhum Addl. AG, who represents the respondents in the proceeding. The facts necessary for due disposal of this proceeding are that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a constable in Excise and Narcotics Department Govt of Mizoram by office Order dated 01.08.1997. He was confirmed in the said post vide Office Order dated 28.02.2000. While working as above, he absented himself from duty w.e.f. 20.2.2010 to 23.02.2010 without obtaining any permission from the concerned authority. On account of his absence from duty, as stated above, a Departmental inquiry was conducted on the following charges: Article-I That the said C/339 Rodingliana while functioning as Excise & Narcotics Constable in the Commissionerate Excise & Narcotics was absented from duties w.e.f. 20-23.2.2010 without obtaining any prior permission from authority. The act and conduct of C/339 Rodingliana is a serious violation of Rule 3(I)(i)-(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II That the said C/339 Rodingliana while functioning as Excise & Narcotics Constable was found under the influence of alcoholic drink on 24.2.2010. The act and Conduct of C/339 Rodingliana is therefore a serious violation of Rule 22(b) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 2. On conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer came to the finding that charges brought against the petitioner have been established. The Commissioner of Excise & Narcotics, Mizoram, Aizawl being the Disciplinary authority accepted such finding and removed the petitioner from service vide Office Order dated 12.07.2010. Said order of the dismissal was challenged by the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 36/2011. 3. This Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by Petitioner therein was not disposed of by Appellate authority and as such, this Court directed the Appellate authority to dispose of such an appeal with the following observations: 8. Under the circumstances it is thought appropriate to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the Statutory Appeal by speaking order. Respondent Authorities are accordingly directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 9. Such exercise shall be made within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment and Order. Respondent Authorities are accordingly directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 9. Such exercise shall be made within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment and Order. The petitioner is also directed to place a copy of the appeal petition along with all documents with the Appellate Authority within a period of 20 (twenty) days from today with a copy of this Judgment and Order. 10. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. 4. Pursuant to such directions, rendered in the Writ Petition aforementioned, the Appellate authority disposed of the appeal, preferred by the Petitioner and affirmed the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary authority. The order of the Appellate authority confirming the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary authority was annexed with the Writ Petition as Annexure-13. It is that order which have been impugned herein this writ proceeding. 5. The aforesaid order was challenged on the grounds that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is quite excessive and disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner and therefore, this Court has been requested to issue appropriate directions to the concerned authority to impose punishment proportionate to the charge levelled and proved against the petitioner herein. 6. The respondents have entered appearance and contested this proceeding having filed counter affidavit. It has been submitted for and behalf of respondents that a major penalty in the form of reduction to a lower time scale of pay from Rs. 4200/- PM - Rs. 4100/- PM to the scale of Rs. 4000-100-600 PM for a period of two (2) years w.e.f. 01.03.2010 was already imposed on him due to serious misconduct he had indulged in. He was so reduced in scale of pay only to give him an opportunity to reform himself so that he could become a useful and responsible employee of the organisation where he had been working. 7. However, on 24.02.2010, he was again found to be under influence of alcohol which made him unbecoming of a Govt. servant. Such a conduct is also a serious violation of Conduct Rules which also demonstrates that no amount of reformative measure would help the petitioner to improve his condition since he is totally unnameable to any reformative measure. 8. 7. However, on 24.02.2010, he was again found to be under influence of alcohol which made him unbecoming of a Govt. servant. Such a conduct is also a serious violation of Conduct Rules which also demonstrates that no amount of reformative measure would help the petitioner to improve his condition since he is totally unnameable to any reformative measure. 8. More importantly, during the period aforementioned, he has again been found to remain away from duty and that too without seeking any permission whatsoever from the authority concerned which is one more indication of his becoming totally useless to the institution where he is working. These coupled with the fact that the petitioner had admitted his guilt in response to show cause served upon him clearly reveal that he has forfeited all his right to be in the service aforesaid. 9. I have carefully perused the materials on record having regard to the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. On making such an exercise, I am of the opinion that despite his past conduct being found far from satisfactory and inspite of his admission to the charged brought against him, the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the form of removal of service is found to be excessive and quite disproportionate to the charge brought and proved against him. 10. This is also a testimony to the fact that by imposing aforesaid punishment, the Disciplinary as well as Appellate authority violate the provisions of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the order of the Appellate authority as far as imposing of punishment in the form of removal of petitioner from the service is concerned is set aside, with a further direction to the Appellate authority to hear the petitioner afresh on the quantum of sentence and to inflict any punishment, save and except the punishment in the form of removal from service on him, which it considers to be appropriate and proper. 11. The respondent Authority is also directed to dispose of the matter relating to imposition of punishment on the petitioner within the period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Let a copy of the order be made available to the respondent authorities for their information and necessary action in the light of direction rendered herein. Appeal dismissed