The main legal point established is that unauthorized absence and desertion without sufficient cause constitute misconduct, and the relief granted by the courts must be logical and tenable within the framework of the law.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 18th July, 2007 dismissing him from the service and direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service without prejudice to any of his rights and contentions.

2. The petitioner has contended that he was posted at 176th Battalion CRPF when he was dismissed from service by order dated 18th July, 2007 passed by the Commandant, 176th Battalion, CRPF, Greater Noida. The petitioner alleged that he was appointed as constable and he had been performing his duties to the post to the best of his ability.

3. According to the petitioner, he was declared as a proclaimed offender and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Article of Charges were framed against him alleging him to be a deserter on three different occasions. The petitioner contended that the charges of desertion were framed against him despite the knowledge of the respondents that the wife of the petitioner was unwell and was suffering from acute vulnerable diseases as Typhoid and Poly menherea which has led to her abortion of two months pregnancy.

4. The petitioner pleaded that his wife was in an acute physical disturbed state of mind and he had to be present besides her and no other family member was present to tackle the medical condition of his wife.

5. According to the petitioner, he had timely appraised his senior officer of his situation by letter dated 30th August, 2006. The petitioner has also relied on the letter dated 4th December, 2006 which was allegedly sent by the petitioner by registered post. The petitioner has produced the postal receipts in respect of the alleged letters, however, no registered acknowledgement due card has been produced nor any certificate from the postal authorities that the registered articles sent by the petitioner were served on the addressee.

6. The petitioner has also produced some of the medical records pertaining to his wife in support of his plea that his wife was allegedly suffering from certain ailments. The petitioner alleged that no show cause notice was given to him nor the copies of the documents were given to him and the enquiry officer by his report dated 4th April, 2007 had held that the charges against the petitioner were made out. During the enquiry, seven witnesses were examined in support of the charges that the petitioner absconded from duty during the period from 11th April, 2006 to 3rd June, 2006; 28th June, 2006 to 4th July, 2006 and 15th August, 2006 to 4th November, 2006 and from 11th April, 2006 till the date of the enquiry. During the enquiry proceedings, the respondents also relied on the record of the petitioner’s absence from 13th July, 2003 to 17th October, 2003; 26th November, 2003 to 2nd December, 2003; 10th December, 2003 to 11th February, 2004; 19th July, 2005 to 1st September, 2005; 18th September, 2002 to 13th November, 2002; 19th March, 2002 to 22nd March, 2003 and 21st November, 2005 to 20th December, 2005.

7. The medical record produced by the petitioner of his wife in the present petition are the prescriptions dated 16th September, 2006; 17th November, 2006 and 21st November, 2006. The blood report and other body parameters of the wife of the petitioner has also been filed by the petitioner with the writ petition. The reports are of during the period November, 2006.

8. The enquiry officer, after considering the evidence which was produced during the enquiry proceedings and noting the fact that the petitioner did not appear despite an opportunity given to him, had proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and after considering the documents and evidence on record gave the findings that the charges against the petitioner were made out.

9. The disciplinary authority, Commandant of 176 Battalion, CRPF, Greater Noida, accepted the report of the enquiry officer and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service after the petitioner failed to file reply to show cause notice given to the p