The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality in punishment, emphasizing that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the charges and extreme penalties should not be imposed unless the unauthorized absence is proved as willful.

N. Paul Vasantha Kumar; CJ.:-

1. This appeal is filed against the order made in SWP No. 442/2009 dated 24.05.2010, wherein the appellant challenged the order of dismissal dated 09.01.2009 with the direction to the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with all benefits.

2. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he was appointed as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1998. He worked in different parts of the Country and on 19.12.2007, he visited his house and returned to duty on 29.12.2007. The respondents punished the appellant by awarding seven days quarter guard punishment and thereafter he underwent HC course at Shika Sahib G. Company and on 09.01.2009, respondent No. 4 directed the appellant to leave the unit. On asking of the appellant as to why he has to leave the unit, the respondent No. 4, at that time, informed the appellant that he has been dismissed from service. On request of the appellant for providing copy of the dismissal order, the respondent No. 4 informed the appellant that same will be issued in due course of time. The appellant brought the matter before the 3rd respondent and requested him to allow the appellant to resume duties by submitting a representation. No action was taken by 3rd respondent and thereafter, the appellant obtained a copy of the dismissal order dated 09.01.2009 from the 4th respondent and challenged the said order in the writ petition (SWP) No. 442/2009.

3. It is the contention of the appellant that before imposing the order of punishment, show cause notice dated 31.03.2008 was issued for which appellant submitted an apology on 15.04.2008, wherein the appellant submitted that on 19.12.2007, an incident of fire had taken place in Army Depot Khundroo and his house being in the vicinity of the depot, received a phone call from his home informing him that the Army had ordered the inhabitants to leave the area. After receiving the said phone call the appellant having felt danger to the life of his family members informed and requested his Company Commander for two days leave. As the leave was not granted, the appellant left the unit after depositing his weapon. The appellant also tendered his apology and prayed that he may be pardoned and in future he will not repeat the mistake.

4. After receiving the reply from the appellant, departmental inquiry was ordered and the dismissal order was passed. It is stated that during preliminary investigation, the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges, however, the Inquiry Officer went on to record the statement of the witnesses and submitted his report. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 dismissed the appellant from service and declared the period of absence from 20.12.2007 to 29.12.2007 as Dies-non and confiscated all the Medals won by the appellant. The order of dismissal was passed by the 4th respondent in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 11(1) C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 C.R.P.F. Rules.

5. It is the contention of the appellant that Section 11(1) CRPF Act read with Rule 27 CRPF Rules, contemplates minor punishment and the major punishment of dismissal ought not to have been issued, which is in violation of the said Act and the Rules. It is further contended that the alleged ground on which appellant was dismissed was his absence from duty for few days and for such an absence extreme penalty of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the allegations.

6. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents by contending that the appellant having been employed in a disciplined force, he behaved in an improper manner, namely, leaving from duty un-authorizedly by returning the weapon is not proper and he having pleaded guilty to the charge, the punishment imposed is justified.

7. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by accepting the contentions raised by the respondents. The appellant, who appeared as a party in person in this appeal, argued the appeal and