The principle of proportionality mandates that disciplinary punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and dismissal for minor infractions may be deemed excessive.

Order :

1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.10.2008, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 27.09.2012 and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 11.10.2018 was upheld.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted leave with effect from 26.08.2007 till 25.10.2007 on account of back pain, however, he could not report on the duty and submitted an application before the higher authorities for extension of his leave. Counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested and confined and thereafter, charge-sheet was served upon him with the charge that he entered into the room of a fellow Constable un-authorizedly and stayed there. Counsel submits that when the Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, statements of the wife of the fellow Constable, i.e., Poornima were recorded wherein she denied the allegations levelled against the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the services of the petitioner should not have been dismissed. Counsel submits that this material fact has been overlooked by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority while passing the orders impugned, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force was expected to adhere to discipline, but he overstayed beyond the period of sanctioned leave. Counsel submits that the petitioner was posted at Bangalore and he was transferred to Ajmer, but he did not report at Ajmer and subsequently, he was found crossing the campus of the respondents at Bangalore and unauthorizedly entering the room of his fellow Constable. Counsel submits that such conduct of the petitioner was not warranted, as per the Rules prevailing, hence, under these circumstances, the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner wherein the statements of not only the wife of his fellow Constable, but also the other witnesses, namely, A. S. Durrani, M.R. Chandran, Usha Sethi, K.R.V. Nair, V.M. Melar Sethi, L Suresh, Girdhari Lal, Sunil Kumar Yadav & Prabhu Singh Meena, were recorded and an opportunity of cross- examination was also afforded to the petitioner and after conclusion of the enquiry, the guilt of the petitioner was found to be proved and thereafter, the matter was sent to the Disciplinary Authority who has taken a decision to terminate the petitioner from service. Counsel submits that copy of the Enquiry Report was supplied to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. Counsel submits that the petitioner has submitted a delayed appeal after a lapse of more than three years from the date of passing of the order impugned, however, the appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority by passing a reasoned and cogent order dated 27.09.2012, which requires no interference by this Court. Counsel submits that no perversity whatsoever in the departmental enquiry has been pointed out by the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, this Court cannot act as a reviewing authority, to re-appreciate the evidence recorded during the disciplinary proceedings.

4. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.C. Chaturvedi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 750. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 19