JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Heard. 2. The Commandant, CRPF is in appeal against the judgment by which the learned single Judge has interfered with a penalty order and has ordered release of salary and other pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 12%, if it is not paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned judgment. 3. While the writ petitioner was working as a constable in CRPF, he was removed from service by enhancing the punishment handed down by the original authority. The allegation against him was in relation to the escape of an under trial prisoner, while he was in sentry duty. He suffered that order, which was imposed in 1987. Nearly two decades thereafter, he came to this Court, challenging the aforesaid on the premise that there was an earlier direction to consider his representation. The learned single Judge interfered with the punishment and directed payment of emoluments and pensionary benefits. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment. With respect, we may say that it does not contain any reason for the conclusions in it. All that it said is that "considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case", the learned single Judge was of the view that Exhibits P2 and P7 are liable to be quashed. That was rendered after noticing the plea of the establishment that the writ petitioner had not brought out any convincing reason for his act of gross mis-conduct/negligence in discharging his duties in his capacity as a member of the Force and that the petitioner had filed a writ petition after lapse of 18 years. 5. Notwithstanding the fact that the impugned judgment can be treated as one without expressing any reason, we have examined the merits of the matter as well, rather than make an order of remit. 6. We see that while the writ petitioner was on guard duty under control command over under trial prisoners and convicts in isolation ward in the Civil Hospital, Aiswal, he, though a constable, acted negligently and mis-conducted himself by not exercising proper control in discharge of his duties, leading to the escape of a convict, Thanmawia, who made good his escape from the isolation ward. CRPF is a uniformed force. Discipline and orderliness cannot be diluted, having regard to the purpose, utility and command in CRPF. CRPF is a uniformed force. Discipline and orderliness cannot be diluted, having regard to the purpose, utility and command in CRPF. Upholding of the discipline and adherence to duty in such uniformed force can never be diluted by judicial intervention. When the competent authorities, with jurisdiction, had come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was liable to be removed from service, that ought to have been challenged within a reasonable time, that too, within the limited format of judicial review of such actions in the uniformed force. On facts, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge exceeded jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in issuing the impugned judgment. The writ petition was also exceptionally delayed; the writ petitioner having led the issue to remain stalemate. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed, vacating the impugned judgment and dismissing W.P.(C).No.29856 of 2005. No costs.