JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (writ petitioner). The respondents are represented by Mr. S. Sarma, the learned Panel Counsel, Central Government. 2. The appellant is a former Head Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and the matter pertains to his removal, in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. The Head Constable challenged the disciplinary action through the WP(C) No.2649/2013 but the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 18.3.2015 and hence the present Appeal. 3. The concerned incident took place on 30.1.2008 when the appellant’s CISF unit was deployed for duty at Duliajan. Noticing the misconduct of the Head Constable, a Memorandum of Charge under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “CISF Rules”) was furnished to him on 23.2.2008 (Annexure-1), with the following two statement of Imputation of Misconduct, Indiscipline etc. “ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I The aforesaid cisf No.853150167 Head Constable/GD (U/S) J N Barman of HQrs Sector, CISF Unit OIL Duliajan while posted at GCS-08 Drilling Location Out Post was detailed for PCC from HC to ASI/Exe wef. 04.02.2008 to 11.04.2008 at RTC Barwaha vide office order No.E-37014/PCC/Adm-4/08/1136 dated 24 Jan' 2008. Consequent upon detailment, he submitted an application dated 28.01.2008 for unwilling to go for PCC due to wife's delivery case. As per existing instructions, his request for acceptance of unwillingness was processed to obtain the approval of Competent Authority. On 30.01.2008 at about 1135 hours, he entered inside the Bunker and counted the Ammunition and on asking the reason for again counting the ammunition, he warned his colleague Constable Har Gopal Choudhary to keep quite. In the meanwhile, he aggressively pointed the barrel towards Bunker door and burstly fired 30 rounds of service ammunition from his SMG Carbine No.16006272 (Butt No.51) without any provocation and sufficient reason. Constable Haripal Choudhary forcibly snatched his Carbine and hand over to post Commander SI/Exe CS Singh for safe custody. But, he arrogantly insisted to return the Carbine and also tried to break the lock where said carbine was kept in safe custody. Constable Haripal Choudhary forcibly snatched his Carbine and hand over to post Commander SI/Exe CS Singh for safe custody. But, he arrogantly insisted to return the Carbine and also tried to break the lock where said carbine was kept in safe custody. Thus the aforesaid indiscipline act on the part of No.853150167 Head Constable/GD (U/S) J N Barman of HQrs Sector, CISF Unit OIL Duliajan amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline, disobedience of lawful orders of the competent authority and unbecoming of a good member of an Armed Force of the Union like CISF. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II The aforesaid No.853150167 Head Constable/GD (U/S) J N Barman of HQrs Sector, CISF Unit OIL Duliajan while deployed at OIL Duliajan GCS-08 Drilling Location consumed liquor and thereafter under influence of liquor he, created nuisance on 30.01.2008 at about 1145 hours. On occurrence of the said incident at about 1400 hours QRT team headed by Shri CL Chakraborty, Assistant Commandant (holding the charge of HQrs Sector) reached at GCG-08 drilling location to handle/control the situation adequately. I/C QRT Team ordered him to ready for HQrs. Duliajan but, he instead of complying the valid order, threatened to assault the QRT team with iron rod and repeatedly denied to hand over the spare magazines under his possession. He was medically examined at OIL Duliajan Hospital in which consumption of liquor was confirmed by the Doctor. Thus the aforesaid indiscipline act committed by CISF No.853150167 Head Constable/GD (U/S) J N Barman of HQrs Sector, CISF Unit OIL Duliajan amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline, dereliction to duty, disobedience of lawful orders of the competent authority and unbecoming of a good member of an Armed Force of the Union like CISF.” 4. In his reply dated 3.3.2008, the Head Constable denied the charges and requested for a personal hearing. Then the Commandant of the CISF Battalion appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. During the inquiry proceeding, 11 witnesses were presented from the side of the prosecution along with 14 documentary evidence. But the charged Head Constable did not adduce any defence evidence but instead cross-examined the witnesses of the prosecution. After analyzing the evidences, the Inquiry Officer concluded that both charges were fully proved in his inquiry report furnished on 13.8.2008 (Annexure-17). 5. But the charged Head Constable did not adduce any defence evidence but instead cross-examined the witnesses of the prosecution. After analyzing the evidences, the Inquiry Officer concluded that both charges were fully proved in his inquiry report furnished on 13.8.2008 (Annexure-17). 5. The inquiry report was then furnished to the charged Head Constable and in his response, the delinquent claimed that the firing of 30 rounds from his carbine was unintentional due to mental stress, arising out of detailment to the Promotion Cadre Course (PCC). He also questioned how he was declared to be intoxicated on the date of the incident, without blood test being conducted on him. 6. After due consideration of the delinquent’s response to the inquiry finding, the disciplinary authority scrutinized the material on the basis of which, conclusion was reached by the inquiry officer and noted that sufficient evidence was laid for the conclusive finding in the inquiry proceeding. Referring then to the gravity of the misconduct, the punishment of removal from service was ordered on 30.8.2008 (Annexure-18), by the disciplinary authority, under Rule 32 read with Schedule-I and Rule 34 (ii) of the CISF Rules. 7. The resultant appeal filed by the Head Constable was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 26.11.2008 (Anexure-20). But there was no immediate challenge to the disciplinary action. However after a delay of about 5 years, the WP(C) No.2649/2013 was filed where the terminated constable contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge. The non-examination of the Doctor who prepared the Medical Reports (Exbt.-1 & 2) was contended to be fatal to the disciplinary action. On the other hand, the respondents argued that all opportunities were provided to the delinquent to defend the charges and there was no infraction of the procedure laid down for disciplinary action, under the CISF Rules. It was also projected that the Medical Reports were referred to as relevant documents to prove the allegation in the Charge Memo itself and since those were signed by the Head Constable acknowledging the authenticity of the Exbt. 1 and 2, he is estopped from questioning the contents of the Medical Reports. 8. Despite the delay of 5 years in filing the writ petition to challenge the disciplinary action of 2008, the learned Judge decided to consider the case of merit. 1 and 2, he is estopped from questioning the contents of the Medical Reports. 8. Despite the delay of 5 years in filing the writ petition to challenge the disciplinary action of 2008, the learned Judge decided to consider the case of merit. He considered the arguments of both sides with reference to the records of the disciplinary proceeding produced before the Writ Court. 9. The prescription of the Doctor who examined the Head Constable on 30.1.2008 in the Oil India Hospital and also her Report on the intoxicated state of the Head Constable (Exbt.1 and 2) were seen and the Court noted that both documents were listed as part of the prosecution evidence, in the Charge Memo dated 23.2.2008. The concerned Medical Certificates were exhibited as Exbt.-1 and 2 without protest from the other side and during the inquiry proceeding. The delinquent also signed the said exhibits along with the Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer. The signature of the delinquent was taken to be a token acceptance of the contents of the two exhibits. The use of the contents by these two documents by the delinquent, during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was also referred to, by the Court. 10. Then the learned Judge noted from the evidence of PW-1 who was cross-examined by the delinquent that, the Head Constable was standing at the bunker entrance gate in uniform with the SMG Magazine in hand and that he was in an aggressive posture. The witness also smelled alcohol from the mouth of the Head Constable. Following the firing incident, when 30 bullets were fired by the delinquent towards the bunker door, the Quick Response Team (QRT) of the CISF had to arrest the delinquent, when he tried to flee from the place of incident. These vital facts relating to the charge was proved by the evidence of PW-3. The facts were also corroborated by the evidence of PW-6 and other witnesses. 11. After noticing the basis upon which conclusion was drawn in the disciplinary proceeding, the Court opined that findings stand supported by relevant materials and it is not a case of a perverse finding, based on no evidence. The proportionality of the penalty against a member of the disciplined force was also taken into account. 11. After noticing the basis upon which conclusion was drawn in the disciplinary proceeding, the Court opined that findings stand supported by relevant materials and it is not a case of a perverse finding, based on no evidence. The proportionality of the penalty against a member of the disciplined force was also taken into account. The apology of the Head Constable in his written statement, after conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding was also seen by the Court. Considering all aspects of the matter, including the adherence to the procedure prescribed under the CISF Rules and the fair opportunity afforded to the delinquent to defend the charges, the Writ Court did not find merit in the case and thus the WP(C) No.2649/2013 came to be dismissed under the impugned order dated 18.3.2015 (Annexure-C). 12. The learned Counsel Mr. S.K. Talukdar for the appellant nevertheless submits that the firing of the bullets from the carbine was an accidental act but an aggravated view of the incident was taken by the authority by looking into the intoxicated state of the Constable. He contends that evidence is lacking on the inebriated condition, of the Constable. But what is discernible from the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the inquiry proceeding that the delinquent had himself admitted to consumption of alcohol in the morning hours. Moreover his colleagues in their testimony had referred to the alcohol smell in the mouth of the Head Constable. The Exbt.-1 & 2 are the prescription and the report of the attending doctor in the Oil India Hospital and here also the drunken state of the Head Constable on the date of incident was reflected. Therefore the irresponsible firing of the carbine under the influence of alcohol was not an unreasonable conclusion. Hence merely because negligent firing could also be a cause for the incident, the conclusion of the disciplinary authorities on one of the possible views, should not normally be substituted by a Court, in exercise of power of judicial review. 13. In a case of disciplinary proceeding, one must be conscious that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. This power is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives a fair treatment but not necessarily to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches, is the correct one, in the eye of the Court. This power is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives a fair treatment but not necessarily to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches, is the correct one, in the eye of the Court. Only in those situation, where the disciplinary proceedings are conducted against a delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of Natural Justice or in violation of the Statutory Rules or where, the conclusions are reached by the disciplinary authority without any material evidence, interference with the conclusion or the finding, would be justified, in exercise of the power of judicial review. But at the same time, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and the conclusions are to be reached on the basis of preponderance of probability and not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Proceeding on the above basis, when the validity of the judgment under challenge is examined, we find that all necessary consideration was made by the learned Single Judge and there is no scope to take a different view than the logical one adopted in dismissing the case filed by the delinquent. Therefore concurring with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Writ Court, we hold that this Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.