- (1.) I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was charged with sleeping with his rifle while on guard duty. The enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner but the disciplinary authority gave a show cause notice proposing to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner "â„¢s reply to the show cause notice was duly considered and a finding of fact was recorded by the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner guilty of sleeping while on guard duty. Thus finding of fact has not been reversed in appeal or revision. The minor variation between the statements of some witnesses, some of whom said that the petitioner was lying (Leta Hua Tha) while some of whom said that the petitioner was sleeping, is not such a discrepancy which would entitle the writ Court to reappreciate the evidence and reverse the finding of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority.
(2.) It has been argued that the appellate and revisional orders are cryptic. It is not necessary for a concurring order of appeal or revision, especially when it is at the departmental level, to be a detailed judgment like a Court of Law.
(3.) Considering these circumstances and the serious consequences which could have resulted if a person on guard duty of a vital installation sleeps while on duty and the need to ensure strict discipline in para military forces, it cannot be said that the punishment awarded is so grossly disproportionate to the misconduct, as to shock the conscience of the Court and call for interference in writ jurisdiction.;