JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 31.12.2007 whereby petitioner has been dismissed from services and also the appellate order dated 19.08.2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected; and further prayer has been made for reinstatement of the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that while the petitioner was posted in Pirtand Thana, Giridih, it is alleged that he indulged himself in quarrel with his fellow constable-Md. Idris, when said Md. Idris came to wake up the petitioner to attend his duty and further disobeyed the order of guard In-charge, for which, a charge-sheet was served upon him vide memo dated 30.07.2007 and the petitioner was asked to file show cause reply, which the petitioner submitted but it was not considered and the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. In the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges in the enquiry report dated 25.11.2007 and thereafter, second show cause was issued to the petitioner, to which, the petitioner replied, but, it is alleged that without considering the reply, impugned order of dismissal from services vide order dated 31.12.2007 was imposed upon the petitioner, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.08.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the charge though it is alleged that the petitioner under the influence of liquor misbehaved with Md. Idris and also assaulted him, but at no point of time he was medically examined rather on the contrary, the petitioner in his show cause reply submitted that said Md. Idris under the influence of intoxication assaulted him resulting into the petitioner got injury on his body, which fact gets corroborated in the medical report submitted by the doctor. But that piece of evidence and submission of the petitioner has been completely brushed aside while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in spite of such glaring evidence against said Md. Idris no proceeding was initiated against him and a false case has been made out against the petitioner. But that piece of evidence and submission of the petitioner has been completely brushed aside while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in spite of such glaring evidence against said Md. Idris no proceeding was initiated against him and a false case has been made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the doctor submitted injury report but he never submitted any report that the petitioner was under the influence of intoxication, which fact itself proves that he was not under the influence of intoxication. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on bare perusal of charge, it transpires that a hypothetical charge has been framed basing on surmises and conjectures stating that naxals may have assaulted the camp, which may cause heavy loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity as neither any opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses was given to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding nor the material witnesses namely, Constable Arbind, N.K. Tiwary and Mahabir Dutta Ojha were examined, which vitiates the entire proceeding. Referring to judgment rendered in the case of Town Area Committee Jalabad vs. Jagdish Prasad & Ors as reported in (1979) 1 SCC 60 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasonable opportunity is a term of well known legal significance and includes an opportunity given to the employee to cross-examine the witnesses examined against him and to lead evidence in his defence and further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan Waishampayan as reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the right to cross-examine is a valuable right and if this right is denied in a proceeding, that proceeding will be vitiated for non-observance of rules of principles of natural justice. 4. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner misbehaved and quarreled with his fellow police constable under the influence of alcohol, accordingly, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner vide memo dated 30.07.2010. 4. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner misbehaved and quarreled with his fellow police constable under the influence of alcohol, accordingly, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner vide memo dated 30.07.2010. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the case at hand no procedural irregularity has been committed in conducting the departmental proceeding and the disciplinary authority after proper consideration of show cause reply and second show cause reply and the materials available on record passed the impugned order of dismissal, which has been affirmed in appeal. It has further been submitted that the indiscipline act of petitioner is based on his alcohol consumption, which has been thoroughly enquired and basing on such enquiry report, order of dismissal has been passed, which has been affirmed in appeal, hence, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). On perusal of materials available on record, it transpires that the main allegation against the petitioner is that he was under the influence of alcohol and during the spell of intoxication indulged himself in quarrel with his fellow constable-Md. Idris when he came to wake up him to attend his duty and disobeyed the order of guard In-charge but admittedly neither blood test nor urine test of the petitioner was conducted to prove the charge of intoxication as such it cannot be conclusively concluded that the petitioner was under the spell of intoxication. Hence, the order of dismissal ought to be set aside. View of the this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors. as reported in (2010) 15 SCC 399. (ii). Besides, petitioner has assailed the impugned order of dismissal on the ground of procedural irregularity stating that neither the petitioner was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness nor the material witnesses were examined and this submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has not been controverted by learned counsel for the respondents, hence, on the principle of doctrine of non-traverse it remained in-tact. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment is vulnerable for noncompliance of principles of natural justice. (iii). For the reasons aforesaid, it appears that the impugned order of dismissal from services is grossly disproportionate to the alleged charge, which is hypothetical to some extent, and, therefore, the petitioner has made out a case on the ground of doctrine of proportionality so far as quantum of punishment is concerned. Since it is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to award punishment as per the charges and the delinquency hence, looking at the factual position in the case at hand ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass an order afresh mainly on the quantum of punishment. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with judicial pronouncements, the impugned orders of punishment are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh mainly on the question of quantum of punishment taking into account the observations made by this Court, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.