Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is challenging an order, passed by the Commandant, 133 BN, CRPF, dated 8th December, 2006 (Annexure-'S' to the memo of petition) as well as an order, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, dated 3rd March, 2009 in a departmental appeal, preferred by the petitioner (order at Annexure-'8' to the memo of petition), whereby, the services of the present petitioner has been brought to an end as the petitioner has remained absent unauthorizedly from 23rd May, 2005 to 8th December, 2006 and against this order, the present petition has been preferred.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had taken leave for fifteen days and thereafter, he had fallen sick and was suffering from Jaundice as well as Malaria and several certificates have been annexed with the memo of petition in support thereof at Annexures-'1', 2', 3', 3/1' etc. and, therefore, the case of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically. The petitioner could not report the respondents because of the aforesaid sickness. The petitioner was taking medicines regularly and was unable to attend or resume his duties. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Commandant, 133 BN, CRPF as well as by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and, therefore, the orders at Annexure-S as well as Annexure-'8' deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise also the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and, therefore, also the order of dismissal deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents who has mainly submitted that the petitioner was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force and has remained, on leave unauthorizedly from 23rd May, 2005 till his dismissal i.e. for more than 560 days. On more than one occasion, the petitioner was requested to resume the duties, but, has not resumed the duties. He has also not sent any communication of overstaying to the competent authority, as stated in Paragraph No. 6 of an order at Annexure-'S', passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. by the Commandant, 133 BN, C.R.P.F. Though there was no duty vested with the respondents to request the petitioner to resume the duty, but, he was directed on several occasions to report his duties, but, the present petitioner has not responded to any of the communications. He has also failed to remain present before the inquiry officer during the course of the departmental inquiry.

5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was given charge-sheet for his unauthorized absenteeism, as per C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 to be read with C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was also appointed and inquiry was also conducted and the respondents have examined several witnesses. Inquiry Officer gave report and the charges have been proved, as per the inquiry report. The petitioner has been punished by the disciplinary authority i.e. by the Commandant 133 BN, CRPF and the petitioner• was dismissed from the services with immediate effect i.e. 8th December, 2006, as per order, at Annexure-5 to the memo of petition. Against this order, departmental appeal was preferred and the appeal was also dismissed, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority i.e. by the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 3rd March, 2009 (Annexure-'8' to the memo of petition). Thus, adequate opportunities have been given to the petitioner, inquiry has been conducted, in accordance with law. There is no defect in conducting the departmental inquiry, charges have been proved and so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the pet