JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri R.N. Pandey and also learned Counsel for the Union of India Shri D.K. Dwivedi at length.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against three orders dated 18.4,02 (Annexure-3), order dated 12.11.02(Annexure-5) and the order dated 17.7.03 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondents No. 2, 3 & 4. The first order is an order passed by the disciplinary authority. The second is an order passed by the appellate authority and the third order is passed by the Revisional Authority, by which, the punishment of removal of service has been imposed against the petitioner under the C.R.P.F. Act, 1945.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as a Constable at Dimapur (Nagaland) which is a sensitive and terrorist affected area.
4. The petitioner was charged with desertion on 8.11.01 for having left and deserted his duties without due permission and leave from the competent authority. A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner on the following charges.:
That No. 900240065 CT (Bug) Bhanu Pratap Pandey of A 123 BN, CRPF at Dimapiir, Nagaland committed an act of misconduct in the discharge of duties in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he deserted on 08.11.2001 at 18.30 Hrs. without any permission leave from the competent authority.
5. The plea as set-up by the petitioner before the departmental enquiry was that the petitioner received information from his home that his wife was very seriously ill and on receiving this information, he applied for leave but even though leave was not granted he had to reach, because his wife was so sick. He also took a plea that he spoke to the Commandant over telephone to appraise him on the urgency.
6. It is a undisputed fact and not denied by the petitioner that he remained absent from duty for the period from 8.11.01 to 27.12.01, i.e., 36 days. Before the disciplinary authorities, the petitioner produced two medical certificates, one showed that his wife was suffering from spondylitis and the other showed that his wife was suffering from viral fever, A departmental enquiry was set-up in accordance with the rules and orders of the Force. During the enquiry, the charge framed against the petitioner was found proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force and keeping in view of the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 18.4.02.
7. Being aggrieved with the order of the Commandant, the petitioner submitted an appeal on 24.5.02 to the D.I.G. of C.R.P.F., Allahabad. The D.I.G. of C.R.P.F. considered the appeal of the petitioner and rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 12.10.02.
8. Against the appellate order dated 12.10.02, the petitioner filed a revision which was also a remedy available to him under the Rules to the I.G.P. C.R.P.F., Central Sector, which was rejected by the order dated 17.7.03 of the authority aforesaid.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and a sympathetic view should be taken of the matter. The petitioner according to him had to rush to attend his wife who was seriously sick.
10. The second argument of learned Counsel or the petitioner was that before the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, he was granted a transfer to Allahabad and was permitted to join on 13.12.01 from Nagaland, which implied that his act of desertion was condoned by the authorities concerned. However, it is not denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order was subsequently cancelled once the disciplinary proceedings ensued.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner belonged to a disciplined force and the act of desertion, which the petitioner was charged, was found proved against him by not one but by three authorities who gave him due opportunity of hearing and examined the matter thoroughly before coming to the conclusion that a person who was found guilty of an act of desertion in a disciplined force could not be retained in the Force as that would no doubt, send a wrong signal to the other members of the disciplined Force and it would also break the morale of the disciplined Force whose prime duty is to protect the nation and its citizens....
12. Having heard both the parties and having gone through all the pleadings and material evidence on record as well as three orders impugned by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders do not contain any error. In fact, the impugned orders have been passed after giving to the petitioner not one but three good opportunities to explain his conduct. All the three orders are well considered. All the three orders have considered each and every submission made by the petitioner in his defense. The orders clearly reveal that firstly the illness of the wife of the petitioner was not such a serious one. Secondly, it reveals without doubt that the petitioner left without taking due permission. The orders also reveal that on no stage, permission was granted to the petitioner and he remained absent for 36 days. The medical certificates which have been appended by the petitioner and on the record do not reveal that the illness of the wife was so serious as it was a matter of life and death which had to be attended immediately. Even, if it had been a matter of life and death, then too the petitioner who belonged to a disciplined force should have awaited permission for a minimum period before leaving his duty.
13. I am firm in my mind that a member of any disciplined Force has to confirm to discipline even to the extent of making sacrifices for the nation which he takes a responsibility to serve. The petitioner was a member of the disciplined Force and was posted in a sensitive area, failed to maintain the discipline and the trust imposed upon him. I am of the opinion that he deserves no sympathy and I am also firmly of the opinion that he has been given a fair opportunity at three stages for defending himself. The three orders passed against him are well considered and in my opinion are correct and deserve no modification from this Court. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.