JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2017, rendered in WP (C) No.121 of 2013, instant appeal has been filed. 2. For appreciating the matter in its right perspective, precise factual matrix is advantageous to be noticed. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 26.03.1981. 4. On 21.05.1998, petitioner was assigned patrolling duty from 2030 hrs while posted in 35th Battalion of CRPF at Thoubal (Manipur). He had consumed liquor as such, was found sleeping in a state of intoxication, so did not perform the assigned duty. He was asked by Shri Radhay Shyam Pandey (CHM) to go for assigned patrolling duty in response whereof, told him "I will not wake up, I am not your servant" as a result thereof, night patrolling duty was performed by Shri Radhay Shyam Pandey (CHM). Petitioner has committed indiscipline and by uttering said words had misbehaved. Respondent Commandant issued a memorandum dated 03.06.1998 where-under an inquiry was proposed to be held against the respondent (delinquent). The statement of articles of charge, statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses were enclosed with the memo. The delinquent was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the memorandum. 5. Shri Durga Prasad, Assistant Commandant held the inquiry. Examined the delinquent as well as other six witnesses. After considering the statements of witnesses, documents and the position of the delinquent having pleaded guilty, concluded that the charges framed against the delinquent are proved. The Enquiry Report dated 05.07.1998 was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority (Commandant). Copy of the report was handed over to the delinquent and then vide office memorandum dated 18.07.1998 was afforded an opportunity to make representation, if any, in writing within fifteen days time and was also given an opportunity of personal hearing. The Disciplinary Authority (Commandant) passed the order dated 06.08.1998 where-under punishment of removal from service w.e.f. 06.08.1998 was awarded as such, delinquent would stand struck off strength of the unit from the same date. 6. Delinquent filed an appeal before Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Kohima which has been dismissed as being devoid of merit and also barred by time. The Disciplinary Authority (Commandant) passed the order dated 06.08.1998 where-under punishment of removal from service w.e.f. 06.08.1998 was awarded as such, delinquent would stand struck off strength of the unit from the same date. 6. Delinquent filed an appeal before Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Kohima which has been dismissed as being devoid of merit and also barred by time. A revision was filed by the delinquent under Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Inspector General of Police, NES, CRPF, Bishop Cotton Road, Shillong, Meghalaya which was also dismissed vide detailed order dated 01.09.2000. 7. Respondent (delinquent) assailed all the said orders before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital by medium of writ petition No.1300 (S/S) of 2006, same has been dismissed, for want of territorial jurisdiction, vide order dated 04.04.2013 with liberty to the petitioner (respondent herein) to assail the impugned orders before the appropriate forum, if so advised. 8. Respondent thereafter filed WP (C) No.121 of 2013 before this Court which has been allowed vide detailed judgment dated 13.06.2014. 9. Aggrieved whereof, Union of India has preferred a writ appeal No.16 of 2015 which vide order dated 29.07.2016 was allowed, impugned order dated 13.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside. Case was remanded for reconsideration by learned Single Judge of this Court. In pursuance whereof, writ petition was considered by learned Single Judge and disposed of vide order impugned herein dated 08.06.2017. 10. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with a direction to the appellants (respondents therein) to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect and his service benefits be paid from the date on which he was removed from service. Impugned orders dated 06.08.1998, 23.09.1999 and 01.09.2000 have been set aside. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge in this second round, instant appeal has been filed. 11. Learned Single Judge while quoting Section 11(1) of the Act has observed that major punishment is not provided therein, it speaks only about minor punishment. Further, in the Enquiry Report it is not mentioned that the delinquent had misbehaved under the influence of alcohol. Learned Single Judge has further observed that the delinquent was not given fair opportunity to defend himself and was not provided with a Presenting Officer. 12. Further, in the Enquiry Report it is not mentioned that the delinquent had misbehaved under the influence of alcohol. Learned Single Judge has further observed that the delinquent was not given fair opportunity to defend himself and was not provided with a Presenting Officer. 12. Learned Single Judge has opined that the decision is arbitrary lacks application of judicial mind. The delinquent has no previous bad record. The offence committed by the delinquent i.e. remaining absent from duty for one day could have been dealt with in some other way by imposing minor punishment i.e. deducting one months salary or issue a strict warning. Moreover, when the inquiry was not fair and it was without a Presenting Officer, therefore, is not in accordance with law. Thereafter has referred to Rule 27 of the Act which provides procedure for the award of punishments then, finally has directed reinstatement of the petitioner. 13. Learned Single Judge has not appreciated the matter in its right perspective. The statement of articles of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct as framed are as under:- "STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST NO.810060086 HC/GD PURAN SINGH OF E/35 BN CRPF (UNDER SUSPENSION) CODE NO.46. Article-I That no.810060086 HC/GD Puran Singh of E/35 Bn CRPF while functioning as Head Constable/GD, committed an offence of neglect/remissness in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the Force Under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, in that he consumed liquor during his duty hours and was not in a condition to perform his duties. Article-II That No. 810060086 HC/GD Puran Singh of E/35 Bn CRPF, while functioning in the aforesaid office, was found guilty of misbehaviour in his capacity as a member of the Force Under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949, in that he used unparliamentary language to the CHM of E/35 Bn CRPF, when he had asked HC Puran Singh to turn-up for his duty. STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MIS-CONDUCT OR MIS-BEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST NO. 810060086 HC/GD PURAN SINGH OF E/35 BN CRPF (UNDER SUSPENSION) CODE NO.46 Article-I That the said No.810060086 HC/GD Puran Singh of E/35 Bn CRPF was detailed for patrolling duty on 21/05/1998 from 2030 hours but he did not turn up for his duty, but was sleeping in his charpoy in an intoxicated state. 810060086 HC/GD PURAN SINGH OF E/35 BN CRPF (UNDER SUSPENSION) CODE NO.46 Article-I That the said No.810060086 HC/GD Puran Singh of E/35 Bn CRPF was detailed for patrolling duty on 21/05/1998 from 2030 hours but he did not turn up for his duty, but was sleeping in his charpoy in an intoxicated state. He was medically examined and the intoxication was confirmed by the report of the medical officer. Thus, he was guilty of neglect/remissness in the discharge of duty in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949". Article-II-That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said No.810060086 HC/GD Puran Singh of E/35 Bn CRPF, did not turn up for his duty from 1030 hrs on 21/5/98 (Patrolling duty in the night). When CHM of E/35 Bn CRPF No.690380032 HC Radhey Shyam Pandey had asked No.810060086 HC/GD Puran Singh as to why he did not turn up for his duty, the said HC Puran Singh had replied using the un-parliamentary language "Main Nahin Uthunga, Main Tumhara naukar nahin hun" etc. On seeing that HC Puran Singh was under the influence of liquor and was not in a condition to perform his duty. He Radhey Shyam Pandey (CHM) himself performed the duties in place of HC/GD Puran Singh. Thus, HC/GD Puran Singh is guilty of misconduct and misbehaviour in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949". 14. Perusal of the enquiry report reveals that during the course of inquiry, delinquent was handed over the copy of memorandum No.P.VIII-1/98-35-EC-II dated 03.06.1998 along with documents, same were read over and explained to him then, he was asked to appear again on 08.06.1998. While appearing on 08.06.1998, the delinquent was asked whether he pleads guilty or not to the charges leveled against him. The delinquent has pleaded guilty thereafter the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses which include the statement of delinquent. In his statement delinquent has admitted his fault. The statements of witnesses were recorded in presence of the delinquent and he was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. On completion of recording of statements of witnesses, copy of the deposition of prosecution witnesses and documents were handed over to the delinquent and was given another opportunity to appear again before the Enquiry Officer. The statements of witnesses were recorded in presence of the delinquent and he was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. On completion of recording of statements of witnesses, copy of the deposition of prosecution witnesses and documents were handed over to the delinquent and was given another opportunity to appear again before the Enquiry Officer. On 30.06.1998, delinquent again appeared before the Enquiry Officer and again accepted his guilt and asked for a chance to reform. The medical reports dated 21.05.1998 and 23.05.1998 were proved which suggest that the delinquent had consumed alcohol during duty hours. 15. First contention which arose for consideration is as to whether the delinquent has been denied the right to defend and an opportunity of hearing in the enquiry proceedings. Record reveals that the delinquent had actively participated in the enquiry proceedings in addition thereto, had accepted his guilt. 16. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No.1 to 5, it has been highlighted that the petition should have been dismissed due to delay and latches, in addition thereto, it has been made clear that the delinquent did not perform his officially assigned patrolling duty from 2000 to 2200 hours on 21.05.1998. At about 2030 hours, he was found to be sleeping in an intoxication and inebriated state which was prejudicial to the security of the entire camp set up in an insurgency active area of Manipur which could lead to endangerment to others personnel life. It is further added that the delinquent has been given sufficient opportunity by both Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority, therefore, the contention that principles of natural justice have been violated is simply an afterthought theory. Then, it is further added that CRPF being a Para-military organization cannot accept acts of indiscipline of the kind as indulged by the delinquent, he has not only failed to obey the lawful command and also failed to perform his patrolling duty while the unit was deployed for anti insurgency duties in Manipur where a minor lapse could be costly to the force. 17. It is an admitted fact that the delinquent was removed from service in the year 1998. 17. It is an admitted fact that the delinquent was removed from service in the year 1998. He had challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority after a lapse of approximately six (6) years by filing a petition in a wrong forum and then finally has filed the petition before this Court in the year 2013. Delay and latches are attributable to him, that apart, matter has also been considered on its merit. 18. Second contention as projected is that the procedure prescribed for inquiry has not been followed. Record clearly indicates that the procedure has been followed. Delinquent had pleaded guilty and at no point of time before the Enquiry Officer or any other authority had asked for appointment of any defence of his choice nor had asked for appointment of any counsel. Instead had pleaded guilty and had actively participated in the enquiry proceedings therefore, the contention that he was deprived of such any opportunity of hearing is totally an afterthought so as to avoid the punishment he has suffered. In the impugned judgment, said position has not been appreciated. 19. The observation of learned Single Judge that minor punishment could be imposed which according to learned Single Judge is inbuilt in Section 11 of the Act but same is misplaced. Section 11(1) of the Act for facility of reference is quoted hereunder:- "11. Minor punishments (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force whom he considered to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force, that is to say,- (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one months pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty eight days with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force." 20. Clause (e) clearly provides for punishment of removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force. Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment under Section 11(1)(e) of the Act. This contention was also taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court in the first round when WA No.16 of 2015 was disposed of. In the Division Bench judgment passed in WA No.16 of 2015 while referring to Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act and also the conclusion which were drawn by learned Single Judge in the order as was impugned therein, reliance was placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India & ors v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat: (2005) 13 SCC 228 . Para 8 of the said judgment has been quoted which reads as under:- "8. It is fairly well settled position in law that removal is a form of dismissal. This Court in Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (Dr.) v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay explained that removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing and both bring about termination of service though every termination of service does not amount to removal or dismissal. The only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal the employee is disqualified from future employment while in the case of removal he is not debarred from getting future employment. Therefore, dismissal has more serious consequences in comparison to removal. In any event, Section 11(1) refers to the Rules made under the Act under which action can be taken. Rule 27 is part of the Rules made under the Act. Rule 27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority. In the instant case the Commandant who had passed the order of removal was the competent authority to pass the order." It was concluded in the said Division Bench judgment as under:- "It is at once clear that the approach of the learned Single Judge that the punishment of removal could not have been awarded in this matter cannot be endorsed and is required to be disapproved." 21. Thus, it was settled that punishment of removal under Section 11(1) of the Act is permissible. 22. Contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the act allegedly committed by the delinquent. Thus, it was settled that punishment of removal under Section 11(1) of the Act is permissible. 22. Contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the act allegedly committed by the delinquent. It could be so, if the delinquent would belong to different services. It is to be borne in mind that the delinquent belonged to a disciplined force where indiscipline or misconduct in duty can be very fatal. Same position has been highlighted by the respondents (appellants herein) in their affidavit-inopposition by stating that CRPF is a Para-military organization cannot accept acts of indiscipline of the kind as committed by the petitioner (respondent herein) as he has failed to perform patrolling duty while the unit was deployed for anti insurgency duties in Manipur where a minor lapse could be costly to the force. Delinquent belonging to a disciplined force knowing it better that as per roster had to discharge duty of patrolling should not have consumed liquor. He was lying in the state of intoxication as a result whereof, he did not attend the duty and also misbehaved with his superior. Position of him having consumed liquor and having been in the state of intoxication has also been proved during inquiry as the doctor who examined him had clearly mentioned that he had consumed liquor. 23. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has also been made clear that the delinquent has been removed from service not dismissed which punishment only barred the delinquent from being re-employed in the force leaving him scope to seek employment in other organization. 24. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the entire record, once the delinquent had pleaded guilty and then on inquiry he is proved to have been assigned duty of patrolling that too in Manipur area for combating insurgency, he could not afford to take liquor so as to remain intoxicated then not to discharge the assigned duty and to misbehave with his superior, therefore, the punishment awarded is proportionate. The judgment impugned and observations made therein and conclusion drawn are totally misplaced and inconsistent with the pleadings and position of the law therefore, judgment impugned dated 08.06.2017 is set aside. 25. Challenge to the orders dated 06.08.1998, 23.09.1999 and 01.09.2000 for the stated reasons fails, writ petition is dismissed. Appeal succeeds shall accordingly stand disposed of.