intoxicated during the course of duty and leaving the camp with ammunition, though Section 10 of the Act that deals with less heinous offences prescribes in sub-clause (a) that “a member of the Force, who is in a state of intoxication when on, or after having been warned for, any duty or on parade or on the line of march shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three months’ pay, or with both” , the aforesaid offence committed by the petitioner would not fall under the category of less heinous offence for the simple reason that he was not only found intoxicated while on duty, but he had admittedly left the CRPF camp without permission while under intoxication and with his ammunition. 11. At the same time, we have taken note of the factual background of the instant case. The petitioner has explained his position of having received a telegram from his native place informing him that his wife was seriously ill and despite having applied to his superiors for leave, the same was turned down which had apparently resulted in anxiety, stress and depression. The said factual background distinguishes the fact position of this case from the cases of Dinesh Kumar (supra) and Dilip Kumar Pandey (supra) on which learned counsel for the respondents has relied on. It is an
