- (1.) WE have heard the Counsel for the appellant but we find no substance in this appeal, which is directed against the order dated 24.02.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.5854 of 1998(P) which was dismissed. Consequently, the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Commandant, B.M.P. dismissing the appellant from the service of the Respondents -State where he had been discharging his duty as a constable, was upheld. A departmental proceeding had been initiated against the appellant to the effect that while he was discharging his duty as a constable, he had committed offence of outraging the modesty of a girl aged about 15 years for which an enquiry was initiated and in course of enquiry, the petitioner -appellant was identified by the victim girl and her mother who had lodged a complaint, at the stage of preliminary enquiry. The evidence of the victim girl was treated as conclusive evidence on the charge levelled against the appellant and in course of enquiry, it was noted that the appellant, in the past also, had committed offence like using abusive language against his superior officers and was found in a drunken condition on many occasions during the duty hours and had committed similar offence of eve -teasing and molesting the girls in the past but no order of dismissal was passed granting him opportunity to mend his behaviour which he failed to comply as he committed the alleged offence for which an enquiry had been initiated. The petitioner -appellant had been granted full opportunity to disprove the charges levelled against him which he could not succeed and hence filed a petition before the learned Single Judge contending that the charges levelled against him were vague. The learned Single Judge refused to accept this contention and was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. In this appeal also, learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the submissions advanced before the learned Single Judge in which we find no substance as it is difficult to appreciate how the charges could be held to be vague when it was specifically laid down in the memorandum of charge regarding the offence alleged against the appellant and the appellant had full opportunity of rebuttal before the Enquiry Officer. The order of dismissal, therefore, was rightly not interfered with by the learned Single Judge and in the appeal we find no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. This appeal thus has no substance and hence it is dismissed at the admission stage itself.;