The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice and statutory regulations prescribing the mode of enquiry must be followed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 05.09.2011 by virtue of which the petitioner has been removed from the service by the respondent No. 4 and a prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the service.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 2000 and since then the petitioner continuously performed the duty to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors. It is stated that the petitioner after performing duty in Assam, was assured by the Company Commander for sanctioning his leave after reaching Jammu and when the petitioner reached Vijaypur, Jammu, he again made a request to his Company Commander for sanctioning his leave as the wife of the petitioner was seriously ill and was confined to bed. None was at home to look after the wife of the petitioner. However, the Company Commander told the petitioner that after reaching Srinagar, he would definitely look into the matter but when the petitioner objected, the Company Commander permitted him to go and see his wife and report back on 21.05.2011. On the instructions of the Company Commander, the petitioner left the company from Vijaypur, Jammu and reached his place of residence on 19.05.2011 and on the very next day he left his place of residence and reached Srinagar on 21.05.2011.

3. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.09.2011 on the ground that the respondents have violated the procedure prescribed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949 and CRPF Rules, 1955 and also harsh order of removal from the service has been passed in a haste manner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 05.09.2 011 but the DIG, CRPF dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner referred a revision before the respondent No.3 against order dated 02.12.2011 and the same too was dismissed by the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. The respondents have filed the response, wherein it has been stated that D/3 Coy of this Unit was deployed in election duties in Assam and West Bengal and the petitioner was also posted in the said Unit. After the completion of the election duty while returning by special train, the petitioner deserted from Vijyapur (Jammu) Railway Station on 19.05.2011 at 1100 hours, without any permission from the competent authority. The said information was given by the OC -D/3 to the Commandant-03 BN, CRPF by the signal dated 20.05.2011 and on the same date, FIR was also lodged about the desertion of the petitioner with Bandipora Police Station. In addition to above, all J&K based Units alongwith the higher authorities were also informed about the desertion of the petitioner by the signal dated 20.05.2011. The petitioner on his own reported in the Coy HQrs on 21.05.2011 at 2145 hours and the information regarding that was sent by OC-D/3 vide signal dated 22.05.2011 to Unit Hqrs. Coy OC of D/3 submitted preliminary enquiry report on 27.05.2011. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was ordered vide 3rd Bn Memorandum dated 01.06.2011. The memorandum was also forwarded to the petitioner through OC of D/3. Sh. Ranjit Mahto, Assistant Commandant was detailed as Enquiry Officer vide 3rd Bn order No. P.VIII-6/2011-EC-2 dated 23.06.2011 to conduct the departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry as per the laid down procedure. In the presence of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer conducted hearing of all the witnesses and the copy of statements of all the witnesses were handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner was given the opportunity to defend himself within 15 days time. The petitioner had accepted all the charges levelled against him vide his application dated 20.07.2011 and denied to submit any witness/documents against the charge. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report