P.B.BAJANTHRI, J. - (1.) Appellant in the present case has questioned both Trial Court as well as Appellate Court orders dated 18.2.2009 and 16.11.2010. The appellant while serving in 91st Battalion in BSF he was charge-sheeted for consuming liquor. The appellant pleaded guilty before Summary Security Force Court (for short 'SSFC') on 23.8.2002. In view of his admission before the SSFC and imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on 23.8.2002, the appellant approached Trial Court in which dismissal order was upheld. Still aggrieved he approached Appellate Court. Appellate Court also upheld the order of dismissal dated 23.8.2002. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant restricted his argument only to the extent that the penalty of dismissal from service for consuming alcohol while not on duty hours would be too harsh and it is disproportionate.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that BSF is a disciplined Force. Persons who are working in BSF should maintain discipline. Whereas, the appellant was in drunken state and who was before the BSF Gate No.1 in the night of 7.7.2002. It was further submitted that persons who are working in disciplined force should maintain discipline not only in office premises but even in public place also. Therefore, imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is in order. Concurrent finding by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court, therefore, the appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court read with order of dismissal.;