ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of order of dismissal dated 16th February, 2009 passed by the Deputy Inspector General Sector HQ SSB Lakhimpur and order dated 31st January, 2012 passed by the Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner has sought his reinstatement with continuity of service, arrears of pay and allowances and all other service benefits.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes raised by the petitioner are that he was enrolled in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) in 1991 as Sub Inspector (P). The petitioner was thereafter, transferred by order dated 28th December, 2005 from Delhi to Palia Kalan. The petitioner had sought the cancellation of the transfer order, however, the petitioner was relieved from FHQ by order dated 24th January, 2006, and he was directed to report to the Commandant 25th Bn. It was also pointed out that in the transfer order dated 28th December, 2005 the name of the petitioner was, mentioned as Rajesh Kumar Bansal in place of Rajeev Bansal.

3. The petitioner however, did not join the 4th Bn.SSB at Palia Kalan and consequently, by order dated 23rd February, 2007 he was declared as ‘deserter’from the force with effect from 1st April, 2006 under Rule 31 of CRPF Rules, 1955.

4. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 23rd February, 2007 declaring him as “deserter”by filing a writ petition being W.P(C) No.2097/2007 titled as “Rajeev Kumar Bansal v. Director General SSB & Ors.”which was disposed off by order dated 19th March, 2007. While disposing off the writ petition of the petitioner, the Court had directed that the petitioner be not arrested pursuant to the impugned order declaring him as a ‘deserter’for the period of 10 days ending 29th March, 2007, and the petitioner was also given the liberty to join the unit on or before the said date at Palia Kalan, Uttar Pradesh. This Court had, however, clarified that if the petitioner does not join the duties in the Battalion within the time fixed by the Court that is by 29th March, 2007, the authorities would be entitled to apprehend the petitioner. The respondents were, however, permitted to initiate such action against the petitioner as were permissible in law for overstaying of leave.

5. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 in respect of three charges i.e. conducting gross misconduct and neglect of duty and remissness in discharge of duty as after being relieved on 31st March, 2006 from FHQ, Delhi, the petitioner did not join his duty at 4th Bn, SSB, Palia Kalan and remained absent at his own will without permission of the competent authority; the petitioner on completion of temporary attachment did not report to join duty at 4th Bn. HQ Palia Kalan; and that the petitioner had sought sanction of leave without pay upto 31st December, 2006 due to family problems whereas by application dated 8th January, 2007 and 1st February, 2007 he had intimated the respondents that he is taking treatment since May, 2006 due to severe backache which allegations were found to be contradictory, misleading and amounted to gross misconduct. The third charge against the petitioner was that the resumption notices were sent to the petitioner which were received back undelivered as the postal authorities had given the report/remarks that he is staying away from his home and thus the petitioner was charged with avoiding to receive official communication sent to him and thus had committed an offence of misconduct in discharge of the duty.

6. The chargesheet was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in respect of all charges made against the petitioner. During the enquiry, the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer as per rules and instructions to defend himself. A copy of the enquiry report was also sent to the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to mak