JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for an appropriate order in the nature of certiorari to call for and quash the order dated 04.01.2017 contained in Memo No. 18/Go (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), whereby the appellate authority modified the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner by converting the same from dismissal to compulsory retirement. Prayer has also been made to reinstate the petitioner. 3. This case lies in a very narrow compass. Petitioner was a constable. He was departmentally proceeded on the ground that he is a drunkard. On 20.11.2011, while on patrolling duty, he in a drunken state fell down from the vehicle. He had to be carried to the barrack. He came to senses after a very long time. Again on 21.12.2020, he was found in intoxicated state and his colleagues brought him to the Barrack. On the said allegations, charge-sheet was issued to him. A departmental enquiry was set up and thereafter, following the procedure of law, vide order dated 31.07.2015, petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was kept pending for a considerable period of time, resulting in filing of writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5135 of 2015. This Court on 28.11.2015, directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal at the earliest. The appellate authority, thereafter, vide impugned order dated 04.01.2017 converted the order of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement with effect from 31.07.2015 (i.e. the date when the initial dismissal order was passed) and has held that the period, which he has not worked, will be treated as “no work no pay.” The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Only ground taken by the counsel for the petitioner is that while modifying the order of punishment in appeal, the appellate authority has not issued any notice to the petitioner in terms of Rule 854 A (6) of the Jharkhand Police Manual. As per him, as the notices were not issued, the entire appellate order by which the punishment was converted, stands vitiated. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, submits that earlier the petitioner was dismissed from service, against which, departmental appeal was filed. As per him, as the notices were not issued, the entire appellate order by which the punishment was converted, stands vitiated. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, submits that earlier the petitioner was dismissed from service, against which, departmental appeal was filed. Appellate authority considered the appeal and converted the dismissal to compulsory retirement, which, in fact, is a lessor punishment than the punishment which was originally awarded by the disciplinary authority. As per him, Rule 854 A (6) of the Jharkhand Police Manual is not applicable on the facts of this case. 6. From the aforesaid facts and the arguments, it is clear that the petitioner was in the police force. Utmost discipline has to be maintained while serving the police force. Petitioner failed to maintain the discipline for which a disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the charge mentioned above. The enquiry officer found the charge to be proved. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.07.2015, petitioner was dismissed from service. The appellate authority, taking a lenient view, substituted the punishment with that of compulsory retirement. Punishment of compulsory retirement is lenient as compared to dismissal from service, as in case of compulsory retirement, petitioner will get all the service and retiral benefits including provident fund, gratuity and pension, provided he had completed the qualifying period of service. In case of dismissal, an employee will not be paid any amount save and except his own contribution towards the provident fund. The appellate authority converted the punishment which was imposed earlier. 7. Petitioner claimed that he ought to have been noticed in terms of Rule 854 A (6) of the Jharkhand Police Manual. Rule 854 A of the Jharkhand Police Manual which deals with compulsory retirement. Sub-Rule (1) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 854 A deals with a situation when the order of compulsory retirement is passed in terms of Rule 74(a) or under Rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code. Rule 854 A (1) of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides that in terms of Rule 74(a) of the Bihar Service Code, on account of inefficiency or misconduct, the police personnel, who have rendered 21 years of effective service excluding leave or 25 years of total service can be compulsorily retired. Rule 854 A (1) of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides that in terms of Rule 74(a) of the Bihar Service Code, on account of inefficiency or misconduct, the police personnel, who have rendered 21 years of effective service excluding leave or 25 years of total service can be compulsorily retired. In terms of Rule 854 A (2), a police personnel can be compulsorily retired under Rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code after giving three months’ notice or giving three months’ salary, in public interest on completion of 30 years of continuous service. Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 854 A of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides that no departmental proceeding or show cause is necessary when a personnel is compulsorily retired in terms of Rule 74(a) or 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code, but, if any departmental proceeding is initiated for any lapse of the delinquent, compulsory retirement can be awarded to him after show cause, even though he may not have completed 21 years or 25 years of service. For better appreciation, it is necessary to quote Rule 854 A (1) (2) and (6), which reads as under: 854A Compulsory retirement: (1) Under rule 74(a) of Bihar Service Code, compulsory retirement of Government servants on account of inefficiency or misconduct can be done for those who have rendered 21 years of active service (excluding leave etc.) or 25 years of total service. (2) Under rule 74(b) of Bihar Service Code, 1952, the appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three months’ notice in writing or three months’ salary in lieu thereof require him in public interest to retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes 30 years of continuous service or attains 50 years of age (See Government of Bihar, Personnel Department Memo No. 3RI-101/73P-5948, dated the 20th April 1973). (3)........ (4)........ (5)........ (6) For awarding compulsory retirement as per rules given above, no departmental proceeding or a show cause is required but if a departmental proceeding has been initiated for any lapse of delinquent, compulsory retirement can be awarded to him after show cause even though he may not have completed 21 or 25 years of service. 8. (3)........ (4)........ (5)........ (6) For awarding compulsory retirement as per rules given above, no departmental proceeding or a show cause is required but if a departmental proceeding has been initiated for any lapse of delinquent, compulsory retirement can be awarded to him after show cause even though he may not have completed 21 or 25 years of service. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that appellate authority had inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement without giving him a notice as envisaged under Rule 854 A (6) as the same is by way of punishment in a departmental proceeding. This argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted as initially the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against the order of dismissal, an appeal was filed. The appellate authority has the power to modify or substitute the punishment. The appellate authority, thus, modified the sentence and by taking a lenient view, the punishment of dismissal was converted to that of a compulsory retirement. In fact, the impact of this appellate order is that of substituting the order of punishment. This compulsory retirement is not in terms of Rule 74 (a) or Rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code, rather, this punishment is in terms of Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides for different types of punishment, which can be inflicted upon a police personnel. Rule 824(c) is the punishment of “compulsory retirement.” 9. The appellate authority, thus, in fact, substituted the punishment of the petitioner to that of compulsory retirement. It cannot be said that the petitioner was prejudiced by the impugned order and in fact, the impugned order favours the petitioner, as he will get all his service dues. 10. Since the order was passed on appeal preferred by this petitioner, it was not necessary for the Appellate Authority to issue notice to the petitioner before passing the appellate order. When the Appellate Authority reconsiders the order of punishment and substitutes the original punishment to some other punishment, which is, in fact, lenient to the original punishment, it is not necessary to issue notice to the delinquent. On the contrary, where the appellate authority feels to enhance the punishment, then it is necessary to issue notice to the delinquent employee. Further, it is a case of substitution of the quantum of punishment. On the contrary, where the appellate authority feels to enhance the punishment, then it is necessary to issue notice to the delinquent employee. Further, it is a case of substitution of the quantum of punishment. A substitution takes effect from the date when the original order was passed. The original punishment order was passed following the principles of natural justice. 11. Further, a police personnel in duty, if is found in intoxicated state, on duty, then it is an act of serious misconduct. While dealing with one such type of case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand and Others vs. Prem Ram, (2020) 12 SCC 658 has upheld the dismissal order, whereas, in this case, appellate authority has reduced the punishment of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement, which, this Court feels, is a lenient punishment. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.01.2017 contained in Memo No. 18/Go, as there is no illegality in the same. 12. This writ petition is, thus, dismissed.