The discretion vests with the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment commensurate with the nature of the offense proved, and the same cannot be interfered with by the Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order bearing No.05/2017-EC-11 dated 31.07.2018, passed by respondent No.2, whereby he has been dismissed from service. Challenge has also been thrown to order No.R-XIII-231/18-EC-3 (RAK) dated 06.10.2018, whereby appeal against order dated 31.07.2018 has been dismissed by respondent No.3. A further direction seeking reinstatement of the petitioner has also been sought.

2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted in 231 Bn. According to the petitioner, leave was sanctioned in his favour from 10.04.2017 to 09.05.2017 but after the period of leave was over, he was unable to resume his duties. It has been submitted that while he was on leave, his son suffered vision disability, as a result of which he had to be admitted to hospital at Srinagar for treatment. It is averred that due to the deteriorating health condition of his son, the petitioner applied for extension of leave which was granted, in the first instance, for eight days and thereafter for another ten days. Ultimately, the petitioner is stated to have joined his duties in the office of respondent No.3 on 12.12.2017 and he performed his duties there upto 31st July, 2018. It has been submitted that all of a sudden services of the petitioner were terminated in terms of impugned order dated 31.07.2018 and even his appeal against the said order has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that he was furnished the notice of show cause in Hindi script which he was not able to understand, as such, he could not respond to the said show cause notice. It has been submitted that the petitioner was made to sign papers without understanding contents thereof and even the charge sheet that was served upon him is in Hindi language, which he is unable to read and understand. In short, the petitioner has submitted that he could not understand the whole enquiry proceedings and the entire process of enquiry was just a formality to terminate his services. It is further contended that the petitioner has not committed any act of neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the Force and he has remained absent from duty for the reasons beyond his control and not due to his willful conduct. It has also been contended that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the grounds urged in the appeal filed against the order of termination.

4. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. In the reply, it has been submitted that the petitioner proceeded on thirty day’s earned leave with effect from 10.04.2017 to 09.05.2017 for the purpose of construction of his house. At his request the leave of the petitioner was extended for 18 days in two spells upto 28.05.2017 but he did not report on duty on the appointed dated i.e., 28.05.2017(AN). It has been submitted that vide communications dated 3rd June, 2017 and 1st August, 2017, issued by the Officer Commanding and communication dated 6th July, 2017, issued by Commandant 231 Bn, CRPF, the petitioner was directed to report for duty immediately but he did not pay any heed to these communications. It has been contended that since overstay from leave without any intimation and permission of the competent authority is an offence under Section 10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, as such, on 29th September, 2017, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Company Commander with the Commandant, warrant of arrest was issued for apprehension of the petitioner.

5. It has been further submitted that a Court of Inquiry was also ordered by the Commandant vide his office order dated 17th October, 2017 and it came to the fore that the petitioner had overstayed his leave with effect from 29.05.2017 without any intimation and permission of the competent authority, which, according to the respondents, is a grave misconduct in terms of Section 11(1) of the