1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.


2. In this case, notice was confined to the question of punishment. On the last occasion we had asked Shri Maksudan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent to ascertain whether the authorities were inclined to reconsider the question of awarding a lesser punishment having regard to the fact that the other two delinquent officers, namely, Rajpal Singh, Sub-Inspector and Sheel Kumar, Head Constable were let off with minor punishment of reduction in rank in the case of Rajpal Singh and withholding of one increment for three years in the case of Sheel Kumar.


3. At the resumed hearing today, we are informed by learned counsel for the respondent that looking to the seriousness of the charge the authorities are not inclined to interfere with the punishment. We however feel that for the solitary lapse on the part of the appellant the punishment of dismissal from service is rather severe although the appellant was also found guilty of an additional charge, namely, act of remissness of his duty as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 in that he did not uncharge the magazine of his rifle after completion of sentry duty and thus violated the Jail Post Standing Order. In fact, he did not uncharge the magazine of the rifle due to his intoxicated state.


4. Ordinarily, in a case of this nature, this Court would not under Article 136 of the Constitution interfere with the measure of punishment. It cannot also be doubted that the charge of being found in a state of intoxication while on duty for a member of the Force is serious enough to warrant dismissal from service as the authorities cannot permit indiscipline in the service. Such an act of misconduct must be dealt with severely. However, the authorities having awarded lesser punishment of reversion and withholding of increments to the two delinquent officers holding a higher rank to the appellant, namely, Rajpal Singh, Sub-Inspector and Sheel Kumar, Head Constable for the selfsame charge, we find no justification for the differential treatment meted out to the appellant. It is true that he was also found guilty of the other act of remissness under Section 11(1) of the Act in that he did not uncharge the magazine of the rifle after completion of the sentry duty, but that act or omission on his part was an act of negligence attributed to his being in an inebriated state.


5. In view of this, learned counsel for the appellant states before us what the appellant is prepared to forego his arrears of salary and allowances in the event of his reinstatement in service. Looking to all the circumstances, we feel that reinstatement of the appellant in service with the award of a lesser punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect and consequent loss in seniority would meet with the ends of justice. There shall however be continuity of service for purposes of pensio

n. 6. Subject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed. 7. We wish to emphasise that the charge of a member of the Central Reserve Police Force being found in a state of intoxication while on duty is serious enough to merit dismissal from service and this order shall not be treated as a precedent.