JUDGMENT : Subramonium Prasad, J. (Prayer Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25/1/2018, made in W.P.No.27790 of 2012.) The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, has filed the instant writ appeal, challenging the order, dated 25/1/2018, passed in W.P.No.27790 of 2012. 2. Shorn of details the brief facts, leading to the filing of the writ appeal, are as under:- (i). The petitioner while working as Head Constable, in Vellore Traffic Police Station, was issued with a charge memorandum, on 16/1/1999. Charges framed against the writ petitioner are as under:- (i). Unbecoming conduct of Policeman in having behaved in an indecent manner in a public place at Chitra wines on 24/11/1998 at 22.15 hours, at Cheyyar and thereby bringing discredit to the Department. (ii). Indiscipline conduct in having left the Headquarters without getting leave or prior permission from any of his superior officers. 3. A criminal case was also registered, against the respondent/writ petitioner and the Department also proceeded ahead with the enquiry. Charges against the respondent herein were proved during the enquiry proceedings. Disciplinary Authority, by its order, dated 15/11/1999, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and awarded the respondent punishment of “removal from service”. 4. The respondent filed an appeal, before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore range, who dismissed the petition, as time barred, by an order, dated 23/10/2000. The review petition was also rejected, by the Inspector General of Police (L & O), Chennai, on 13/3/2001. 5. The above mentioned orders passed by the appellate authority and reviewing authority were challenged, in W.P.No.4944 of 2006. This Court, by order, dated 20/11/2011, disposed of the writ petition, directing the Deputy Inspector General of Police, to consider and dispose of the appeal. This time, the appellate authority considered the case, on merits. The Appellate Authority found that even though the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been acquitted in the criminal case, the enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the documents Ex.P.1 to P.5, came to the conclusion that the respondent/writ petitioner had behaved in an indecent manner, in a public place and that therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of punishment imposed for proved misconduct. The Appellate Authority, therefore, affirmed the order of removal from service and found that the said order is not excessive, considering the charges which have been proved against the writ petitioner. The Appellate authority held that unbecoming and in disciplinary conduct, cannot be tolerated, in the disciplinary force. 6. The writ petitioner/appellant challenges this order in Writ Petition No.27790 of 2012. The learned Single Judge by order, dated 25/1/2018, impugned herein, found that the misconduct had been proved. However, the learned Single Judge found that the punishment is harsh and excessive, considering the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had put in 28 years of service. The learned Single Judge, therefore, set aside the order of removal of service and imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has directed the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to get all other attendant and consequential benefits on such compulsory retirement. 7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore District, has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in the instant writ appeal. 8. Heard Mr. R.Udaya Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Ms. Jasmine Padma for Mr. L. Chandrakumar for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 9. Misconduct has been proved. It is settled law that the enquiry officer has to only consider the evidence produced before him by the State and the delinquent. Enquiry Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct have been proved. This order, has been affirmed by the Disciplinary authority and by the appellate authority. The appellant/writ petitioner has not found fault with the decision making process. The learned Single Judge has also upheld the finding of mis-conduct. 10. The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the punishment is harsh and excessive. 11. Mr.R.Udaya Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants has placed heavy reliance, on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India and Others Vs. Diler Singh {(2016) 13 Supreme Court Cases 71}. In the said case, the respondent was a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He had worked for 14 years. 11. Mr.R.Udaya Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants has placed heavy reliance, on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India and Others Vs. Diler Singh {(2016) 13 Supreme Court Cases 71}. In the said case, the respondent was a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He had worked for 14 years. A charge-sheet was served on him, alleging that on 22.06.2001, about 11.30 hrs., he left the campus, without permission of the competent authority and went to the bazaar and consumed liquor and quarrelled with some civilians. On the advice of the competent authority, a medical examination was conducted on the respondent and as per the medical report given by the assistant surgeon, District Hospital, Medak at Sangareddy, it was found that the respondent had consumed liquor. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a departmental enquiry was ordered by Commandant 61-Bn., vide Memo No. P-VIII-8/01-61-EC-II, dated 6.7.2001 and the respondent was also placed under suspension, with effect from 6.7.2001. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and on the base of the material and testimony of the witnesses came to hold that the charges had been proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and came to hold that the charges levelled against the respondent had been proved beyond doubt. Recording concurrence with the findings returned by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority opined that the respondent was not fit to continue any more, in the Force and accordingly, in exercise of power conferred, under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) read with Rule 27-A(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short ‘the Rules’), ordered the respondent to be removed from the service. It was argued that even if the charges have been proven, the punishment of dismissal in the obtaining factual matrix is absolutely harsh and shocking to the conscience. It was contended that the punishment is disproportionate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not agree with the submission. It was observed as under:- 24. ..... The respondent was a part of the disciplined force. He has left the campus without prior permission, proceeded to the market, consumed liquor and quarrelled with the civilians. It was contended that the punishment is disproportionate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not agree with the submission. It was observed as under:- 24. ..... The respondent was a part of the disciplined force. He has left the campus without prior permission, proceeded to the market, consumed liquor and quarrelled with the civilians. It has been established that he had consumed liquor at the market place, and it has been also proven that he has picked up quarrel with the civilians. It is not expected of a member of the disciplined force to behave in this manner. The submission, as has been noted earlier, is that the punishment is absolutely disproportionate. The test of proportionality has been explained by this Court in Om Kumar and others v. Union of India, Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham and Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari. 25. In Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (supra), it has been held that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. When a member of the disciplined force deviates to such an extent from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner which is not conceived of, it is difficult to hold that the punishment of dismissal as has been imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience. 26. We are inclined to think so as a member of the disciplined force, the respondent was expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in fancy. It is not a mild deviation which human nature would grant some kind of lenience. It is a conduct in public which has compelled the authority to think and, rightly so, that the behaviour is totally indisciplined. The respondent, if we allow ourselves to say so, has given indecent burial to self-control, diligence and strength of will-power. A disciplined man is expected, to quote a few lines from Mathew Arnold:- “We cannot kindle when we will The fire which in the heart resides, The spirit bloweth and is still, In mystery our soul abides: But tasks in hours of insight will’d Can be through hours of gloom fulfill’d. Though the context is slightly different, yet we have felt, it is worth reproducing. 27. 27. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court is restored and the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. The above mentioned case covers the instant case on all force. 13. Similarly, in Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.Velraj, 1997 (2) SCC 708 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has observed as under:- “The Police force has to be a disciplined force and a member of the police force has to be behaved in a disciplined manner particularly when he is on duty. The respondent even though he was sent for official work and was on duty returned to the police station in “mufti” and in a drunken condition after consuming “arrack”. He had returned to the police station to report to his superior officer as to what happened to the work which was entrusted to him. Under these circumstances, his behaviour has to be regarded as an act of gross misconduct. It is difficult to appreciate how the Tribunal could persuade itself to take a contrary view. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case it is not possible to say that the punishment which was imposed upon him was highly excessive. The appellate authority after considering his previous record and after giving him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed enhancement had passed the order of punishment.” 14. Similarly, in Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India {2011 (14) SCC - 306}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with an order of termination when the petitioner (Constable) in that case has consumed liquor and committed acts of misconduct. 15. It is now well settled that indiscipline of any sought cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force. The Police force has to be a disciplined force and if a member of a police force behaves in an indisciplined fashion, the police force will lose the confidence of people. It is expected that a member of the Police force would behave in a disciplined manner and set an example before people. The order of the learned Single Judge interfering with the quantum of punishment cannot be sustained and is therefore, set aside. 16. It is expected that a member of the Police force would behave in a disciplined manner and set an example before people. The order of the learned Single Judge interfering with the quantum of punishment cannot be sustained and is therefore, set aside. 16. In the result, Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority is restored. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.