JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Certiorari has been sought for quashing of Office Order Annexure-F dated 22.08.1997 passed by respondent No. 4 dismissing the petitioner from service, for quashing of Office Order Annexure-H, dated 18.12.1997 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal Annexure-F as also for quashing of Office Order Annexure-K, dated 14.09.2000 passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the order of rejection of appeal by respondent No. 3. Prayer has also been made for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for commanding respondents to re-instate the petitioner w.e.f. the date of passing of order Annexure-F, dated 22.08.1997 along with all consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF') on 31.12.1982 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Lance Naik and thereafter as Naik. The petitioner was assigned duty as Driver in 129 BN CRPF w.e.f. January, 1997 and on 10.04.1997 was deputed for Convoy duty from Srinagar to Jammu. Convoy left for its destination along with 20 service personnel going on leave and were accommodated in the truck being driven by the petitioner and the same stopped at about 1300 hrs at Ramban i.e. the first halt, where some of the aforesaid personnel wanted to answer the call of nature, therefore, the petitioner drove the truck a few kilometer away and eventually stopped near a Tea Stall. At the said Tea Stall, a few civilians were selling wooden planks at cheap rates and some of the personnel on the truck along with the petitioner decided to purchase some wooden planks, which they loaded in the vehicle and resumed their journey. However, on reaching Patnitop Forest Check Post at about 1420 HRS, some forest guards stopped the vehicle and on not being satisfied with the explanation for the presence of the wooden planks, arrested the petitioner and sent him to Batote, where he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Batote, who released him on bail on 12.04.1997. In the meantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.04.1997 by respondent No. 4, i.e. Commandant 129 BN CRPF in anticipation of contemplated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.04.1997 by respondent No. 4, i.e. Commandant 129 BN CRPF in anticipation of contemplated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Eventually decision to hold enquiry against the petitioner was communicated vide Memorandum dated 27.05.1997 issued under the signatures of respondent No. 4 with the direction to the petitioner to represent his case within fifteen days. The Memorandum along with Article of charge i.e. Annexure-A dated 27.05.1997 contained the Article of charges and as per Article (I) the petitioner had committed an act of disobedience by not stopping the truck at Ramban, while as per Article (II), he was accused of having committed an act of misconduct for misusing official vehicle to load wooden planks for personal use. 2 That vide order Annexure-B dated 12.06.1997 issued under the signature of respondent No. 4, Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Petitioner replied to the Article of charges vide communication Annexure-C, dated 27.06.1997 while at the same time tendering an unconditional apology, if at all he had breached any provision of the law, which he was not aware of, with the assurance not to repeat the misconduct as alleged, as also taking up the plea that he was the sole earning member of his family. 3. On the basis of the proceedings conducted, enquiry report Annexure-E dated 30.06.1997 was forwarded to the petitioner by the enquiry officer vide letter dated 14.07.1997 finding the charges against the petitioner on account of disobedience of orders and misconduct while on duty proved, and recommending suitable disciplinary action against him. Petitioner filed representation dated 22.07.1997 before respondent No. 4 and refuted the charges leveled against him and once again offered his apology and made a prayer for being pardoned. 4. In the Writ Petition, it has been contended that although the petitioner and one Naik/GD Dharam Pal started journey from Srinagar to Jammu as driver and protection commander on the truck, the respondents started departmental enquiry only against the petitioner and not against the said Dharam Pal as evident from Annexure-D, therefore, the same was violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as respondent No. 4 passed Office Order dated 22.08.1997 dismissing the petitioner alone from service. Even in the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 3 on 06.10.1997, the petitioner sought pardon by stating that he had not committed any offence deliberately and prayed that his case be dealt with sympathetically. However, Appeal as well as Revision against the dismissal were also rejected vide orders dated 18.12.1997 & 14.09.2000 (Annexures-H & K respectively). 5. Writ Petition has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that in view of the apology having been tendered by the petitioner at the very first instance and in view of the financial status of the petitioner on account of his being the sole bread earner, the imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal from service was not justified and was clearly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, therefore, order of dismissal, rejection of Appeal as also Revision were liable to be quashed on the ground of the same having been passed in violation of the provisions of the Rules applicable and without applying mind to the facts of the case. It has been further contended that the report on the basis of which, the order of dismissal was passed, was never provided to the petitioner at any stage, which resulted in serious prejudice inasmuch as the petitioner was deprived of his right to make an effective representation to the disciplinary authority and in view thereof, the petitioner had been condemned unheard. 6. The aforementioned plea, as has been raised by the petitioner in paragraph 21 of the Writ Petition, is in contradiction to his stand in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition, wherein it has been mentioned that Enquiry Report dated 30.06.1997 was enclosed by the Enquiry Officer to letter dated 14.07.1997 addressed to the petitioner through proper channel. Contents of Annexure-E are reproduced hereunder:- "OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT-129 BN., CRPF C/o. 56 APO No. P.VIII-C/97-129-EC.II Dated the 14th July' 97 To No. 820710091 NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim HQ/129 BN., CRPF, C/o 56 APO Through: OC HQ/129 BN., CRPF. Subject: REG. Enquiry Report of DE. The report of the Inquiry Officer is enclosed. The Disciplinary Authority will take a suitable decision after considering the report. If you wish to make any representation or submission, you may do so in writing to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days of receipt of this letter. On 17/6/97 individual submitted a written statement where he pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. The Disciplinary Authority will take a suitable decision after considering the report. If you wish to make any representation or submission, you may do so in writing to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days of receipt of this letter. On 17/6/97 individual submitted a written statement where he pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. The delinquent was given opportunity and time to produce documents and witness for natural justice in favour of him. From 21/6/97 statement of prosecution witnesses being recorded. On 26/6/97 again NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim submitted another written statement where he pleaded guilty for charges framed against him. ARTICLE-I REG. The delinquent No. 820710091 NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim pleaded guilty for charges framed in Article-I. The charges is proved beyond doubt. 1. No. 820710091 NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim was detailed for down convoy duty from Srinagar to Jammu with vehicle Regn. No. HR-38-A2635 TATA Truck of 129 BN. 2. NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim and escort commander NK/GD Dharam Pal were briefed regarding convoy discipline/security instructions by convoy commander SI Purushotam Lal of 75 BN CRPF. 3. The vehicle Regn No. HR-38 A 2635 TATA Truck was not stopped by NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim at Ramban with rest of the convoy for refreshment and he drived ahead and halted at about 10 to 12 kms ahead from Ramban near one tea stall. From the above facts and statement of NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim and escort commander NK/GD Dharam Pal it is clear that charges framed in the Article-I against No. 820710091 NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim proved. ARTICLE-II REG. No. 820710091 NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim pleaded guilty for charges framed in the Article-II against him. The charges is proved beyond doubt. 1. NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim loaded 26 Nos. illicit sleeper in vehicle Regn No. HR-38 A 2635 TATA Truck where he halted in vehicle at about 10 to 12 kms. ahead from Ramban. 2. NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim was caught red handed by Forest Department official at Patnitop check post barrier and he was arrested. The vehicle Regn No. HR-38-A 2635 TATA Truck loaded with 26 Nos. illicit sleepers seized and sleepers found illicit by the Forest Department official. 3. NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim was released on bail and Truck No. HR-38-A 2635 TATA also released on 12/4/97. From the above facts and statement it is clear that NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim misused Govt. vehicle under his charge by loading and carrying unauthorized store. illicit sleepers seized and sleepers found illicit by the Forest Department official. 3. NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim was released on bail and Truck No. HR-38-A 2635 TATA also released on 12/4/97. From the above facts and statement it is clear that NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim misused Govt. vehicle under his charge by loading and carrying unauthorized store. (Illicit wooden sleeper loaded for personal interest). Hence charges framed in Article-II is proved beyond doubt. OPINION: Having given due consideration to the oral evidence record, documentary evidence relied upon and the submission made by the delinquent No. 820710091 NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim is found guilty of an offence under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 for disobedience of order and misconduct while on active duty. (i) That he violated the convoy order by not stopping his vehicle at Ramban where other vehicle of the convoy stopped and separating ahead of Ramban at a distance of about 10 to 12 kms stopped his vehicle. (ii) Also NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim misused the Govt. vehicle under his charge by loading and carrying unauthorized stores i.e. wood for personal interest. The accused has exhibited extreme indiscipline committed an act of disobedience and misconduct being a member of the disciplined Force. Hence it is recommended that suitable disciplinary action may be taken against No. 820710091 NK/DVR Mohd. Nasim. Submitted to the Commandant-129 BN CRPF for necessary action please. Sd/- 30/6/97 Enquiry Officer" 7. It is therefore clear that the afore mentioned communication from the Commandant dated 14.07.1997 enclosing the Enquiry Report and giving the petitioner an opportunity to make any representation or submission in respect thereto had been received by him. The sole ground, on which, the petitioner has challenged the dismissal is of his having tendered apology and the penalty of dismissal being gross disproportionate to misconduct alleged against him. 8. The respondents have filed objections taking up the plea, inter alia, of delay and laches. However, the same need not hold up this Court for the simple reason that petitioner has attached record to show that he had been pursuing remedy of appeal and revision, and thereafter filed a Writ Petition before the Patna High Court and on objection being taken as to jurisdiction of the Patna High Court to hear the case, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. In view thereof, the plea that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches on account of the petitioner having approached the J & K High Court after 3 years and six months from the date of passing of order of dismissal is noticed to be rejected. It has also been mentioned that although all other vehicles in the convoy had stopped the vehicles at Ramban at about 1300 hrs for lunch/refreshment, the petitioner did not stop the vehicle there and went ahead, and stopped it about 12 kms away from Ramban where he loaded some timber on his own in the vehicle being driven by him in the presence of CRPF personnel travelling in the vehicle, whereafter he proceeded towards Jammu and on the way, the vehicle was intercepted at Forest Check Post Patnitop after great effort by the Forest Staff and the vehicle was stopped there after being followed by the Forest Staff of the Check post Magunallah upto Patnitop when the petitioner did not stop the vehicle at Magunallah check post for checking. On checking of the vehicle by the Forest Staff, 26 illicit sleepers were recovered from the truck. The petitioner was arrested, vehicle seized and the Range Forest Officer, Batote Forest Range, filed a case against the petitioner in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batote on 11.04.1997, who released the petitioner on bail on 12.04.1997, punishment had been awarded to the petitioner keeping in view the gravity of offence as well as the relevant instructions, rules laid down in CCS (CCA) Rules and CRPF Rules, 1955. Petitioner had been afforded full opportunity of hearing before the enquiry officer and as per the petitioner's own admission, he had remained present on each and every date of hearing. He had submitted his written submission on 17.06.1997 and 26.06.1997. As regards discrimination, it has been mentioned that Naik/GD Dharam Pal was deployed as protection commander of the truck and his duty was merely to give protection to the truck, whereas the petitioner was the driver of the truck who had loaded illicit timber in the govt. truck and on interception of the vehicle by the officers of the Forest Department, a case was registered only against the petitioner i.e. driver and not against Naik/GD Dharam Pal, therefore, the question of holding departmental enquiry against him did not arise at all. truck and on interception of the vehicle by the officers of the Forest Department, a case was registered only against the petitioner i.e. driver and not against Naik/GD Dharam Pal, therefore, the question of holding departmental enquiry against him did not arise at all. That taking into account the fact that the petitioner had committed a grave misconduct with mala fide intention to gain personal benefits, the order of dismissal was passed after taking into account all aspects of the matter as also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had committed misconduct as a member of a disciplined force, that not only had the petitioner violated the instructions by not stopping the vehicle at the designated point where other vehicles had stopped even after proper briefing by convoy commander and other supervisory officers, but he had also committed misconduct of carrying illicit timber, resulting in his arrest by the Forest officials after a chase. Prayer has been made that the petition is devoid of merit, totally misconceived, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. The petitioner has filed rejoinder contending that no challan was filed against him under Section 173 Cr.P.C., that respondents had initiated action against him only on account of registration of a criminal case. That petitioner had not been given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses etc. 11. The order of the Revisional Authority reveals that on the basis of perusal of revision petition, DE File, comments offered by DIGP CRPF Bhopal, the charges framed against the petitioner had been fully proved in the departmental enquiry, which was conducted as per laid down procedure and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself, but he failed to produce any witness or document in support of his defence. Considering the gravity of offence, the disciplinary authority awarded penalty of dismissal from service to petitioner. The Revisional Authority also took into account the pleas put forth by the petitioner but rejected the same. Relevant extract of the order of the Revisional Authority is reproduced hereunder: "(i) Approximately 20 CRPF personnel including the personnel of 134 Bn. were accommodated in the truck driven by the petitioner. On reaching Ramban at about 1300 hrs. all the vehicles of convoy except the vehicle, which was driven by the petitioner, halted for lunch. Relevant extract of the order of the Revisional Authority is reproduced hereunder: "(i) Approximately 20 CRPF personnel including the personnel of 134 Bn. were accommodated in the truck driven by the petitioner. On reaching Ramban at about 1300 hrs. all the vehicles of convoy except the vehicle, which was driven by the petitioner, halted for lunch. The petitioner did not stop the vehicle at Ramban and stopped at about 12 kms ahead of Ramban despite clear directions given by the convoy commander, purchased wooden planks on the way to Jammu. Hence the submission of the petitioner in this regard is not reliable. (ii) The disciplinary authority after careful consideration of the case come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed an act of serious misconduct and disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the force and awarded him the punishments of dismissal from service. (iii) Appeal dated 06.10.97 submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the DIGP, CRPF, Bhopal vide his office order No. P.XII-21/97-Estt-1, dated 18.12.97. Hence there appears to be no delay in disposal of appeal by the appellate authority. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner regarding indefinite delay is not tenable. (iv) Examination of the documents reveals that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority is proportionate to the act of misconduct and disobedience of orders committed by him. The petitioner has not brought out any new facts for consideration in the revision petition other than those considered and rejected by the appellate authority. Having considered all aspects of the case including the grounds presented by the petitioner in his revision petition. I find that the order of the appellate authority vide his order No. P.XII-21/97-Estt-I, dated 18.12.97 rejected the appeal of the petitioner is fully justified and does not call for any interference. I, therefore, reject the Revision Petition dated 29.04.2000 submitted by Ex. NK/Dvr Mohd. Nasim of 129 Bn. CRPF." 12. A perusal of Annexure-C i.e. reply to charge-sheet, inter alia, states as under:- "Further that till date my service record is unblemished and in case your good self is of the opinion that u/s. has breached any rule, I tender my apology unconditionally and assure that in future there will be no repetition of the same." 13. CRPF." 12. A perusal of Annexure-C i.e. reply to charge-sheet, inter alia, states as under:- "Further that till date my service record is unblemished and in case your good self is of the opinion that u/s. has breached any rule, I tender my apology unconditionally and assure that in future there will be no repetition of the same." 13. Perusal of statement of petitioner before the Enquiry Officer attached along with Writ Petition as Annexure-D reveals that all drivers and escort commanders of the convoy were briefed by the convoy commanders at convoy ground regarding convoy discipline and security, that about 20 leave going personnel were accommodated in the petitioner's vehicle; that on reaching Ramban at about 1300 hrs, all vehicles of the convoy halted but the petitioner did not halt his vehicle there as leave personnel said they had to go for call of nature, therefore, the petitioner drove his vehicle ahead of the rest of the convoy i.e. about 10-12 kms ahead of Ramban near one tea stall, where he met four civilians who asked him to purchase wooden planks at cheap rate whereupon he purchased 26 wooden sleepers for Rs. 8,000/-. He was not issued any receipt. The same were loaded in vehicle No. 38A-2635 T/Truck and reached Patnitop Forest check post at about 1430 hrs. Forest personnel conducted enquiry about wooden planks/sleepers loaded in his vehicle, whereupon he told that he had purchased the same from one Attar Lal for sending it to his native village. The brother of Attar Lal also came there and told the Forest personnel that timber slippers had been purchased from Attar Lal near Ramban, but the Forest personnel arrested him and sent him to Batote with vehicle, where he was produced before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batote and subsequently released on bail on 12.04.1997. 14. In response to question by the enquiry officer, petitioner admitted that he had not taken any permission from anybody for loading 26 wooden sleepers purchased by him for private use as he had seen everybody carrying wooden sleepers from there. On being asked, as to whether he could identify anybody who had carried wooden sleeper earlier, the petitioner answered in the negative. In response to question with regard to Bill for Rs. On being asked, as to whether he could identify anybody who had carried wooden sleeper earlier, the petitioner answered in the negative. In response to question with regard to Bill for Rs. 23,493/- from one Habib Ullah Dar Barzulla dated 04.04.1997 as against the purchase and loading of wooden sleepers in the truck on 04.10.1997, petitioner answered that aforesaid bill was taken by him on 12.04.1997 after getting bail from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batote, and since he did not understand English, he thought that the bill given to him was correct. The aforementioned answer is in contradiction to the statement of the petitioner wherein he states that he had purchased 26 wooden sleepers at Rs. 8000/- and secondly that he had purchased them from one Attar Lal. Thus, not only there is variation in the price at which he is stated to have purchased the timber sleepers, but also the name of the person from whom he purchased, besides variation in the price, date and the name of the seller in the bill issued. 15. I have considered position as noted above and am of the view that once the petitioner had admitted that instructions were issued by the Convoy Commanders/superiors before start of the Convoy from Srinagar to Jammu with regard to the procedure to be followed by the convoy and despite the rest of the trucks of the convoy stopping at Ramban he did not stop his truck at Ramban, but proceeded at a distance of 10-12 Kms ahead and stopped at a tea stall purportedly on the request of the CRPF personnel accompanying him to enable them to answer the call of nature, the same appears to be a cooked-up story, for neither has any of the personnel accompanying the petitioner in the truck been produced to show that any such request had been made, secondly it is beyond comprehension why if the other trucks of the convoy stopped at Ramban for the purpose of lunch, the petitioner's truck did not stop at Ramban to enable the personnel accompanying him on the truck to answer the call of nature if so required and have refreshments. Admittedly, the petitioner did not adhere to the instructions of his superiors with regard to the procedure to be followed in the procession of the convoy and by violating the instructions, the petitioner proceeded ahead where he purchased 26 sleepers. Admittedly, the petitioner did not adhere to the instructions of his superiors with regard to the procedure to be followed in the procession of the convoy and by violating the instructions, the petitioner proceeded ahead where he purchased 26 sleepers. In fact, the statement of the petitioner (Annexure-D) does not make any mention with regard to the 20 personnel accompanying him having got down at the tea stall or of the said tea stall having facilities for the 20 CRPF personnel accompanying him to answer the call of nature or of the said personnel having answered the call of nature. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Rasool Bhat" reported in (2005) 13 SCC 288, to contend that order of dismissal of a CRPF personnel on account of overstaying leave by 300 days was held to be justified and not suffering from any infirmity, that in case of misconduct by the personnel belonging to a disciplined force, the member of the disciplined force was to be dealt with sternly and it was for the employee concerned to show how the penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. 17. Having considered the submissions made, I am of the considered view that being a member of disciplined force, the petitioner violated the instructions of the superiors with regard to the manner, in which the vehicles, which form part of the convoy, were to proceed/stop. The same is a very serious violation of the instructions and the same could result in serious security concerns jeopardizing the lives of all on board the truck. A member of a disciplined force has no business to violate the instructions given by his superiors with regard to the performance of duties by him. 18. That apart, the act of alleged purchase and carrying of 26 Nos. wooden sleepers without obtaining any permission in respect thereto, is another misconduct as it was not open to the petitioner as a member of disciplined force to carry wooden sleepers in a Govt. vehicle for his alleged private use that too without permission from the competent authority. 18. That apart, the act of alleged purchase and carrying of 26 Nos. wooden sleepers without obtaining any permission in respect thereto, is another misconduct as it was not open to the petitioner as a member of disciplined force to carry wooden sleepers in a Govt. vehicle for his alleged private use that too without permission from the competent authority. While taking into account all aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish that the procedure for conduct of enquiry was not followed, that penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct and not warranted. Accordingly, finding that the petition is bereft of merit, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.