The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's act of unauthorized absence from duty constituted 'misconduct' under the CISF Rules, leading to the imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement with all pensionary benefits.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The present petition has been preferred seeking setting aside of the order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby under the provisions of sub section (1) of Rule 32 of CISF Rules, 2001, the petitioner has been punished with compulsory retirement with all pensionary benefits. In addition, setting aside of order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority is also sought whereby petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order dated 12.05.2016 has been dismissed being devoid of merit.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner, Ex. Head Constable/GD, had joined the services of CISF in the year 1990 and on 30.05.2014 he was directed to be posted out from CISF 8th RB Jaipur w.e.f. 14.07.2015/AN to CISF Unit HEP Uri-1 on regular posting. Against the aforesaid posting order, petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2014 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Director General, CISF, who was further directed to consider the same keeping a sympathetic view. On his representation, considering education of petitioner's son, his posting was deferred up to 30.04.2015. Petitioner was relieved to his new place of posting vide Commandant CISF 8th RB Jaipur Movement Order No. (5851) dated 14.07.2015 with direction to join his new Unit i.e. CISF Unit HEP Uri-I after availing the applicable joining period. In the meanwhile, the petitioner again preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7504/2015 before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2015 with costs.

3. Since the petitioner failed to join his new place of posting, accordingly, a Charge Memo No. V-15014/CISF/HEP/PS/Disc-36/2015-2346 dated 07.12.2015 under Rule-36 of CISF Rules 2001 was issued by the Commandant against the petitioner for overstaying his joining time without any authority from 31.07.2015 to 20.11.2015. The allegations are that pursuant to Movement Order dated 14.07.2015, petitioner had overstayed for 113 days while proceeding on regular transfer to CISF Unit HEP Uri-1.

4. For the charge of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty from 31.07.2015 till 20.11.2015 i.e. total 113 days; without prior information to the competent authority, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him and pleaded not guilty. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 09.03.2016, who passed the final order on 12.05.2016 and awarded the punishment of "compulsory retirement with all pensionary benefits".

5. Against the aforesaid order of 12.05.2016, the petitioner claims to have filed an appeal, which was considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.06.2016. Even the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority was rejected vide order dated 17.02.2017 being devoid of merits. It is against the aforesaid orders dated 12.05.2016 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and 24.06.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority that the present petition has been filed seeking setting aside thereof.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the while passing the impugned orders, the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority has not appropriately considered the definition of word "misconduct" and under relevant provisions of Central Industrial Security Act or Central Industrial Force Rules and thereby, no major penalties can be imposed upon the petitioner. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.L. Kalara Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation Of India Ltd., 1984(3) SCC 316.

7. Learned counsel empathically submitted that the CISF Act and CISF Rules do