JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner, while continuing as a Constable under 42 BN CRPF at Hyderabad, following a departmental proceeding, has been dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 01.11.2008 in Annexure-3, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 17.06.2009 under Annexure-5 and reaffirmed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 05.04.2010 in Annexure-7. 2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was selected as a Constable under the CRPF on 12.03.2003 and he was sent for training to Chennai for 14 months and thereafter he was posted at Tripura, Agartala under 42 BN CRPF. In March, 2005 he was transferred to Srinagar and thereafter in 2008, he was posted at Hyderabad. While he was continuing at Hyderabad under 42 BN CRPF allegation was made against him on 09.05.2008 that the petitioner along with two other CRPF constables went outside the campus without permission of the superior authority and purchased liquor from local market and consumed in excess quantity inside the Barrack. At about 8.15 p.m. under the influence of liquor one Sri Pooran Singh took out his AKM Rifle, on being instigated by one Mhaske Sudam who poured some dal on his bed and left it as being cooked. Sri Mhaske Sudam caught hold of the Rifle and while both of them were in tussle, Sri Sudam pressed the trigger of the cocked rifle from which three rounds were fired. Out of which two hit the side wall and third one hit the roof top of the barrack which after the rechoche hit the left ankle of Sri A.L. Balaswamy, who was sitting a few bed away. On such allegation the petitioner and two others were placed under suspension and charges were framed against them vide Annexure-1 dated 09.06.2008 and following articles of charges were framed against the petitioner. Article-I “That, NO.055253629 CT/GD Mhaske NO.035032806 CT/GD Pooran Singh and NO.031424497 CT/GD Jogesh Kumar Sona while Functioning as CTs/GD of C/42 Bn., CRPF, committed an act of gross misconduct in their capacity as a member of the Force under section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that, on 09/05/08, while deployed in highly sensitive operational area affected with LWE activities, all three of them went outside the campus without permission of their superiors/ competent authority in violation of instructions contained in Camp Standing Order. They purchased liquor from local market out side the Camp and consumed in excess quantity inside the barrack. At about 2015 Hrs under influence of liquor, No.035032806 CT/GD Pooran Singh cocked his AKM Rifle butt No.13Regd. No.6800 issued to him for duty and No. 055253629 CT/GD Mhaske Sudam fired 3 rounds in air from it as a result, splinter from one of the bullet after ricochet from the wall of the barrack hit No.055144475 CT/GD A.L. Balaswamy causing him bullet injury in the lower part of left leg thereby committed an act which is pre judicial to good order and discipline of the force. Article-II The aforesaid No. 055253629 CT/GD Mhaske Sudam No.035032806 CT/GD Pooran Singh and No. 031424497 CT/GD Jogesh Ku. Sona while functioning as CTs/GD in C/42 Bn, CRPF, committed an act of misconduct in their capacity as amember of the force under section 11 (1) of CRPF Act,1949 in that on 09/05/2008 at about 2015 Hrs, they violated the santity of the Ors line by brining liquor inside the barrack and consuming it inside the lines in presence of other personnels staying in the same barrack which resulted in the firing of 3 rounds from AKM Service Rifle Butt No. 13, Regd. No. 6800 issued to CT/GD Pooran Singh, thereby endangering the lives of other personnels present in the barrack and bringing bad name to the force and lowering its image in the eyes of Civil Police authorities. Article-III No.035032806 CT/GD Pooran Singh and No. 031424497 CT/GD Jogesh Ku. Sona while functioning as CT/GD committed an act of misconduct in their capacity as a member of the force under section 11 (1) CRPF Act 1949 in that on 09.05.2008 they were detailed for QRT and night sentry duty and after having been informed about the said duty at night in a operationally sensitive area infested with left wing extremism activities consumed excessive liquor inside the barrack. Thus, they committed an act pre-judicial to good order and discipline of the force”. and he was called upon to show cause on the allegation so made within 10 days of receipt of the charge. Thus, they committed an act pre-judicial to good order and discipline of the force”. and he was called upon to show cause on the allegation so made within 10 days of receipt of the charge. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.09.2008 stating therein that he is not guilty of the charges except that he has consumed some liquor on the date of occurrence and as such, he has not committed any crime i.e. shoot out/fire and therefore, he sought for exoneration from charges. On the basis of the explanation so submitted, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a joint inquiry of all the three delinquents and in the enquiry proceeding, evidence was recorded and witnesses were also been examined, basing on which, enquiry report was submitted on 01.10.2008 holding the petitioner and two others guilty of charges. The disciplinary authority after going through the enquiry report, passed the order of punishment on 01.11.2008 dismissing the petitioner from the service and also directed to treat the period of suspension from 10.05.2008 till the date of dismissal as such and further directed that the petitioner is not entitled to any pay or allowance for the said period other than the subsistence allowance already paid and directed to withdraw medal and decorations, if any, earned by the petitioner in his service career and also forfeiture of the same under provision of Section 12-D of the CRPF Act, 1949. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal on the ground that the same is barred by principles of natural justice and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The appellate authority confirmed the order of disciplinary authority by order dated 17.06.2009, vide Annexure-5. Against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 16417 of 2009 which was disposed of on 25.11.2009 giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer revision. The revisional authority confirmed the order of punishment vide order dated 05.04.2010 under Annexure-7. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as imposition of penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and therefore, seeks for interference of this Court. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as imposition of penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and therefore, seeks for interference of this Court. It is further urged that once the disciplinary authority passed the order of suspension, he is estopped to pass any other order of punishment under Section -11(a)(b)(C)(d) & (e) of CRPF Act, 1949. It is further urged that except intoxication, the petitioner has not been charged for any misconduct for which he is liable for disciplinary proceeding and subsequently, the major punishment of dismissal from service has been passed by the authority. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Bhgwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of police Delhi & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2131 and the order dated 21.10.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21429 of 2012 ( Chairman, Central Tibetan School Administration and others v. Shri Shyam Meher) passed by the High Court of Orissa and (Sri) Janardan Mohanty v. Union of India and three others, 2000 (II) OLR, 126. 4. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General for the Union of India states that being a member of the Force, the conduct of the petitioner clearly indicates that due to his indiscipline behavior, the authority by following due procedure of law, imposed the punishment by passing the order of dismissal from service. Moving outside the camp without permission of the competent authority, consuming liquor with two others, remaining absent from the evening Roll call on 09.05.2008 while detailed/kept reserve for QRT duties, tantamounts to an indiscipline attitude in a disciplined service. The petitioner, who was detailed for Camp Guard duty as 1st relief from 2000 hours to 2215 hours, was found absent from the briefing of sentries carried out by the Guard Commander at about 1930 hours, he took dinner from the quarter mess without proper permission inside Barrack No.8 they consumed liquor illegally kept in the custody of one of them and being heavily drunk misutilised the AKM rifle given to the petitioner and two others, causing an injury to one A.L. Balswamy, who was sitting few beds away and was talking on his mobile phone. By hearing three rounds of firing sounds, personnel of C/42 along with Sri Manish Kumar, OC arrived at the Barrack and on checking of Rifle, 87 live rounds only were found available in three magazines and three fired empty cases were also found near the bed. After a preliminary inquiry on 10.08.2008, a joint departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and two other delinquents namely, Pooran Singh and Mhaske Sudam. By following due procedure and in compliance to the principles of natural justice, punishment was imposed on the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner has pleaded his guilt and prayed for mercy. Once the petitioner has admitted his guilt and prayed for mercy, the procedure envisaged under the Act and Rules may not be required to be followed, consequence thereof, punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and reaffirmed by the revisional authority and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the same. He further urged that this Court has not no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 5. Let me first consider the question of jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 6. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor, General, states that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application as the cause of action arises beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that all the correspondences have been made to village address of the petitioner, who belongs to State of Odisha and therefore, since part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Janardan Mohanty (Supra), wherein this Court has held as follows: “6. Right to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce fundamental rights and other legal rights against the State or authority or its agency is a constitutional right. Such right should not be made illusory or unenforceable upon narrow construction of the concept of cause of action. In the present case, the petitioner was a member of the CISF and All India Organisation. CISF has admittedly its network of offices and establishments in different parts of India including the State of Orissa. Such right should not be made illusory or unenforceable upon narrow construction of the concept of cause of action. In the present case, the petitioner was a member of the CISF and All India Organisation. CISF has admittedly its network of offices and establishments in different parts of India including the State of Orissa. The petitioner is an employee removed from service and in usual course, he had come back to the place of his permanent residence in Orissa to take shelter after he had been removed from service. It is not possible for him a jobless employee to come to the State where he was last posted to avail of his right under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. CISF with its net-work of offices and establishments is not likely to suffer any irreparable prejudice in meeting legal challenge of the petitioner in this Court. 7. Considering all these aspects including the interest of justice, we are of the view that a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court enabling it to entertain this writ application.” 7. In view of the law laid down by this Court as mentioned supra, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application, is absolutely misconceived one. 8. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the admitted fact being that the petitioner along with two others having remained in Force behaved in an indisciplined manner by procuring liquor from outside the camps, consuming the same in excess and dealing with arms allotted to them causing three fires leading to injury to a 4th person, who is no way connected to the incident. It clearly indicates the unruly act of the petitioner. To establish the allegation, 14 prosecution witnesses were examined in presence of the petitioner and two other delinquents. Though adequate opportunity has been given to cross-examine all the 14 prosecution witness and copies of 39 prosecution documents were handed over to the delinquent by enquiry officer to defend themselves from time to time. In course of enquiry, the petitioner along with two other delinquents admitted their guilt and charges famed against them in Article, I, II and III, having been proved, the authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. In course of enquiry, the petitioner along with two other delinquents admitted their guilt and charges famed against them in Article, I, II and III, having been proved, the authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Reliance placed by the petitioner on Bhagaban Lal Arya (supra) where the question of directing the authority to reconsider the punishment was under consideration and the apex Court after considering the order of punishment held that not only the same was highly excessive and disproportionate, but was one which was not permissible to be imposed as per the service rules. Consequently, the punishment order was set aside and the petitioner in the said case was directed to be reinstated in service. Similarly, in Chairman, Central Tibetan School Administration (supra) this Court relying upon the judgment of Bhagawan Lal (supra) held that if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, the Constitutional Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment. The facts of both the above mentioned cases are different from that of the present one. In both the above cases there was no admission of guilt on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the allegation made and the punishment imposed, this Court interfered with the same and reduced the punishment. But these judgments are distinguishable in the context of the present one. In the present case, the petitioner has admitted the guilt, and the conduct of the petitioner being absolutely indisciplined one, this Court is neither inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment nor remit the matter back to the authority for reconsideration. 9. In Deputy Commissioner, KVS & others v. J. Hussain, AIR 2014 SC 766 , the apex Court held that host of factors go into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in department or establishment where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exist. Therefore, in exercise of power under judicial review, the apex Court time and again held that the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. Therefore, in exercise of power under judicial review, the apex Court time and again held that the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. In paragraph-11 of the said judgment, the apex Court held as follows:- “………… In all cases dealing with the penalty of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirements, hardship would result. That would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the Court. That cannot a ground for the Court to interdict with the penalty. This is specifically held by this Court in H.G.E. Trust & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 430 in the following words: “A person, when dismissed from service, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matter, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a few recent decisions of this Court.” 10. While considering the provisions contained under Article 311, the apex Court also laid down the principles with regard to the factors to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment as mentioned supra. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the order of punishment. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by appellate authority and re-confirmed by the revisional authority. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.