RAKESH KUMAR, J.:–The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order contained in Memo No. 1054 dated 28.6.1996 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) VSTPP (Unit) Vindhya Nager, District - Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh). By the said order, punishment of dismissal of petitioner from CISF services has been awarded. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General, CISF, East Zone, Headquarter, Patna, contained in Memo No. 4381 dated 21.6.1997. By the said order, the appellate authority has affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal.

2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner, who was constable in CISF was charged on an allegation that while he was in CISF unit VSTPP Vindhya Nager, a movement order dated 2.6.1994 was issued directing him to proceed on regular posting to CISF Unit, HEP Uri ( Jammu & Kashmir) after availing ten (10) days E.L. and fifteen (15) days joining time. Accordingly, he was due to report to CISF Unit, HEP Uri on or before 28.6.1994, but till date i.e. till the date of order of charge memo dated 22.12.1994, he did not report to the CISF Unit HEP, Uri nor he informed his senior. He remained unauthorisedly over staying E.L. and joining time. He was further charged that he was issued with call up notice vide letter no. E-38015/VSTPP/- Adm/ 1-94-3190 dated 22nd October, 1994 at home address directing him to report to CISF Unit, HEP Uri forthwith, but neither he reported at CISF Unit HEP Uri nor he responded to the said letter. Accordingly, on the allegations of dereliction of duty, misconduct and disobedience to lawful orders, he was proceeded departmentally. Enquiry Officer was appointed and charge sheet was delivered to the petitioner on 14.12.1995 through the office of Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, Ghazipur (U.P.), who reported that charged official was passing his time at home and had not gone to his new place of posting. After conducting enquiry the enquiry officer submitted his report. During enquiry the petitioner also pleaded guilty of charges on 6.3.1996. Even thereafter, regular departmental proceeding was initiated. After the conclusion of enquiry the enquiry officer submitted its report, which was subsequently communicated to the petitioner through registered post, which was acknowledged by the petitioner through his communication in which he simply stated that he wanted to come to the office but could not do the same on domestic grounds and a suitable decision in the matter may be taken and intimated to the petitioner. Finally, order of punishment i.e. dismissal from service was passed by the competent authority i.e. Commandant, by its order dated 28.6.1996 and the said order was also affirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated 21.6.1997. Both the orders have been assailed in the present writ petition.

3. Sri Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing both the orders, has argued that the petitioner due to reasons, which were beyond his control, had failed to report to his new place of posting. Even he had tried his level best to join his new place of posting but due to non availability of convoy, he failed to report. Learned counsel has also argued that in the departmental proceeding full opportunity was not provided to the petitioner, and as such, order of dismissal as well as order of the appellate authority are liable to be set aside.

4. Sri Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav, learned Central Government Counsel, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that in Uniform Forces over staying is considered as a serious misconduct, and as such, the disciplinary authority has rightly passed the order of dismissal after following all the procedures as well as affording full opportunity t