JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- "(i) To quash the impugned orders dated 14.12.2002 (annex-13), 19.11.2002 (Annexure-10) and 24.6.2002 (Annex 19) read with Order dated 24.12.2002 (Annex. 15) with all consequential service benefits in favour of the petitioner; (ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and to allow and pay to the petitioner all service benefits including the full salary and allowances for the period of suspension; (iii) To issue any other writ, order, direction or declaration which this Hon'ble Court deems just fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case in favour of the petitioner.; (iv) To allow the cost of writ petition." 2. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 12/08/1980. He was promoted as a Lance Naik in 1992, Naik in 1994 and Havaldar in 1997. While the petitioner was posted in B/13 Battalion of CRPF at Jungka Karbianglong as Mess Commander, on 08/07/2001 one Inspector RN Sarkar (Company Commander) abused him in a drunken state and hit him on him near his right ear causing injures to his ear. The Inspector RN Sarkar (Company Commander) made a complaint against the petitioner upon which a preliminary enquiry was held and ultimately a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner vide memorandum dated 12/09/2001. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry on 29/09/2001. The enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted detailed enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty for Charge No. 1 and not guilty for Charge No. 2. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry on 29/09/2001. The enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted detailed enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty for Charge No. 1 and not guilty for Charge No. 2. The charges against the petitioner read as follows:- ^^en&1 ;g gS fd mDr cy la[;k 800410289 go@th-Mh-ekrq flag¼fuyafEcr½ ch@13 cVkŒ esa go@th-Mh- ds in ij dk;Zjr jgrs gq, dsŒfjŒiqŒ cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11¼1½ ds v/khu cy dk lnL; gksus dh gSfl;r ls vopkj@dnkpkj@vuq'kklu ghurk dk ,d ?kksj vijk/k fd;k gS ftlesa fd mlus vius vf/kdkjh fujh{kd vkj-,u- ljdkj dEiuh dek.Mj&ch@13 cVkŒ ds }kjk fnukad 08-07-01 dks dEiuh dk;kZy; esa cqyk, tkus ij muls vHknz O;ogkj fd;k ,oa dEiuh dek.Mj ds ck;s xky ij FkIiM+ ekjdj mu ij izgkj fd;k tks cy esa vuq'kklu ds fo:) rFkk mlds vopkj dk ?kksrd gSA en&2 ;g gS fd mDr cy la[;k 800410289 go@th-Mh-ekrq flag ¼fuyfEcr½ ch@13 cVkŒ es go@th-M+h ds in ij dk;Zjr jgrs gq, dsŒfjŒiqŒ cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11¼1½ ds varZxr cy dk lnL; gksus ds ukrs dnkpkj dk ,d ?kksj nq"d`R; fd;k ftlesa mlus fnukad 09&07&01 dks ch@13 cVkŒ ls eq[;ky; 13 cVkfy;u fniw ¼vle½ ds fy, Vsªsu }kjk izLFkku fd;k] ysfdu jkLrs esa ykefMax LVs'ku ij mrj dj 'kjkc ds u'ks es lkoZtfud LFkku¼ykefMax jsyos LVs'ku½ ij vHknz iznZ’kUk fd;kA ftlds dkj.k mls thŒvkjŒihŒ Fkkuk ykefMax jsyos LVs'ku ij jkrHkj cUn j[kk x;kA mDr vHknz iznZ'ku dsŒfjŒiqŒ cy dk uke turk esa dyafdr gqvkA^^ 3. The respondents vide order dated 24/06/2002 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. He preferred a departmental appeal which was also dismissed on 19/11/2002. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, appearing counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been victimized and the enquiry does not have requisite proof to have penalized him by compulsorily retiring him. He has also submitted that on reading of the evidence, no case is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court to the evidence rendered by the prosecution and submitted that except for the complainant, all other witnesses have not deposed with the clarity for the act alleged against the petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the record and the discrepancies clearly reflect that this was an isolated event and the petitioner cannot be penalized with the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement which brings his service to an end. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the record and the discrepancies clearly reflect that this was an isolated event and the petitioner cannot be penalized with the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement which brings his service to an end. Learned counsel has shown Annexure-7, which was the response made by the petitioner against the charges levelled against him and also the incident where the petitioner himself got hurt at the hands of the complainant and the explanation has been given that the petitioner did not slap the complainant. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was having a chequered history and not fit for a uniformed disciplinary force and thus, the decision of compulsorily retiring him from service was very well justified. He also submitted that on a bare reading of Charge No. 1, it becomes clear that the petitioner slapped the complainant which is well supported by the witnesses one after another who have been produced by the respondents. He submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and it was categorically found after proper enquiry that while performing duties of Mess Commander at B13 Battalion at Jungka Karbioanglong, Inspector RN Sarkar (Company Commander) was slapped by the present petitioner. The fact of the petitioner arriving on being called without wearing any cloth on the upper portion of the body and without shaving was proved and while the petitioner was advised to come in proper dress he slapped the Inspector RN Sarkar (Company Commander) and left the office. Learned counsel further submitted that the complaint made by the petitioner on 08/07/2001 was also examined during the preliminary enquiry and prima-facie he was found of committing misconduct with the Company Commander. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of the Company Commander Mr. RN Sarkar, Head Constable Yaad Ram, Head Constable Lal Singh, Ct. Leela Ram and Head Constable Kuldeep Ram as prosecution witnesses who all deposed against the present petitioner and confirmed the misdemeanour and misbehaviour of the petitioner with the Company Commander RN Sarkar. Charge No. 1 of slapping the Company Commander RN Sarkar was proved by the Enquiry Officer and thus, the punishment order was rightly passed. 6. Leela Ram and Head Constable Kuldeep Ram as prosecution witnesses who all deposed against the present petitioner and confirmed the misdemeanour and misbehaviour of the petitioner with the Company Commander RN Sarkar. Charge No. 1 of slapping the Company Commander RN Sarkar was proved by the Enquiry Officer and thus, the punishment order was rightly passed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court, after examining the statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution, is of the opinion that the same clearly support the charge against the petitioner of slapping the Company Commander Mr. RN Sarkar and the same is thus established. Upon scrutinizing the evidence rendered by the witnesses Company Commander Mr. RN Sarkar, Head Constable Yaad Ram, Head Constable Lal Singh, Ct. Leela Ram and Head Constable Kuldeep Ram, this Court finds that they are supporting the version of the prosecution of slapping the Company Commander RN Sarkar by the petitioner. The respondent is a uniformed disciplinary force and any kind of insubordination or misbehaviour by the petitioner being member of such uniformed disciplined force with the officer senior to him has been rightly viewed by the respondents and thus, the impugned order of compulsory retirement does not call for any interference. 7. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. All pending applications including stay application also stand dismissed.