Pramath Patnaik, J.

Assailing the impugned order dated 20.09.2011, passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 21.06.2012, passed by the Appellate Authority pertaining to the termination of the petitioner from services, the instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the aforesaid orders.

2. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the respondent-Union of India.

3. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that, after due selection, the petitioner was appointed for the post of 'G.D.' and went for basic training w.e.f. 25.05.2011 at STC, Latur and due to serious ailments of his wife, the petitioner went to his home and the petitioner returned to training on 08.06.2011. Again due to ill health, the petitioner remained absent from line on 19.06.2011. Without any show cause notice and following the procedure as laid down in the Police Manual, the Respondent No. 4 has been pleased to terminate the petitioner from his services vide order dated 20.09.2011. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted representations before the concerned respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the concerned respondents but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy has knocked the door of this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

4. During pendency of the writ application, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner annexing the copy of the impugned order dated 20.09.2011.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner without giving any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders, passed by the respondents have been passed in breach of Rule 31 of the CRPF Rules.

6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner was enlisted as a Constable/GD on 12.03.2011 by the G.C., CRPF, Sindri (now GC Ranchi) and allotted to Western Sector and he has reported in this Additional Training Centre on 25.05.2011 for the basic training. He deserted from this campus on 30.05.2011 at 05:30 hrs. without prior permission. Accordingly, a search party was sent to nearby area of the campus, such as, bus stand, Railway Station, local market and all nearby area, but he could not be traced out. Further FIR was lodged in this regard on the same date i.e. 30.05.2011 at P.S. MIDC, Latur (M.H) and has requested to all concerned if he will be reported/found at their location/nearby area, he may be detained at their location and informed to this ATC for taking further action. The petitioner reported on his own on 08.06.2011 and submitted application that due to serious illness of his wife, he deserted from the camp and he may be allowed/permitted to join his training but again, the petitioner deserted from the camp w.e.f. 19.06.2011 and not reported till date. A registered letter No. D.V.1/2011-12-EC.II-STC dated 23.07.2011 was sent to home town address of the petitioner with direction to report on duty forthwith, but neither he reported on duty nor responded to the communication. It is a serious misconduct on the part of the Government servant and attracts Disciplinary action. The petitioner is a new appointee and is governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. It has further been submitted that as per Rule 5 (1) (a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) R