JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment & order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.8724/2019, the appellant/ original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal.

2. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal.

The appellant was appointed as Constable in Railway Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “RPF” for the sake of brevity) on 22.05.1999 and was posted at TE-Coy, Lumding. As the record unfolds, the appellant was transferred to 15 RFP at Chaparmukh and again on 07.01.2014, he was transferred to his original place of posting at Lumding and was asked to join the duty on 10.01.2014. It is the case of the appellant that he could not join the duty within the stipulated period of time as he had fallen ill and, therefore, a memorandum of charges dated 04.02.2015 came to be issued. It appears from the record that the appellant appeared in the inquiry twice and could not appear thereafter, which culminated into a report dated 08.09.2015 holding the charges to be proved and the disciplinary authority upon consideration of the inquiry report passed the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 29.12.2015.

3. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 27.02.2017 and as the same was not decided, he approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.3176/2017, which came to be disposed of with a direction to dispose of the departmental appeal. The appeal ultimately came to be rejected with an order dated 08.04.2019 and being aggrieved by the same, the present petition came to be filed challenging the aforesaid order of dismissal from service dated 29.12.2015.

4. Three predominant grounds were raised before the learned Single Judge. Firstly, that the infirmity in the procedure followed; secondly that the reasonable opportunity to defend was not granted and thirdly, the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

5. Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.S. Roy, learned standing counsel, NF Railway, appearing for the respondents.

6. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Director General, RPF & Ors. -Vs-Ch. Sai Babu, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 331 has contended that unauthorized absence in duty as such does not constitute misconduct. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent and more particularly the fact that the appellant was absent on other 6(six) occasions from 2007 to 2014 onwards and after considering the submissions made was pleased to dismiss the petition against which the present appeal is filed.

7. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this appeal and has reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge. Mr. Nath contended that within one day the inquiry was over and neither any notice nor any inquiry report has been submitted and straightway the order of dismissal has been passed. It is certainly contended that the punishment imposed is highly unreasonable and disproportionate.

8. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant lastly contended that the order of dismissal from service may be converted into an order of compulsory retirement in facts of this case. Even that contention does not deserve any merit as the record indicates that without any reasons the appellant has remained absent for a long period of 674 days and that too during a span of 15(fifteen) years of service, the appellant has remained unauthorizedly absent for 6(six) times and hence no lenient view can be taken in the facts of this case.

9. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment & order and has contended that the appeal bei