ORDER :

The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 01.04.2014 by which after, departmental proceedings, he has been removed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the appellate authority on the appeal filed by the petitioner as well as the order dated 26.10.2015, passed by the Revisional Authority.

2. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner was appointed as a constable and was posted at 10th Battalion, R.P.S.F., Dhanbad. He was suffering from some orthopaedic problem since 2008, as such, he was referred to the railway hospital, E.C. Railway at Dhanbad. After special medical check-up the Chief Health Director, Orthopaedic Hospital, Eastern Railway declared that the petitioner was suffering from instability of right knee for the last five years and some light duty should be given to him, if possible. Thereafter, on 10.06.2009, he was declared unfit for the job of constable in medical category B-1 and was fit for sedentary job only. A special super-numery post was created temporarily for the said medical D-categorisation. The petitioner was absorbed in the special super-numery post and was allowed to draw the same pay which he was drawing as a constable. After three years, petitioner was directed to report for reexamination to Jagjeevan Ram Hospital, Mumbai Central. The petitioner was medically examined and was found fit for duty as a constable.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he resumed his duty but again fell ill for which he was treated by one Dr. D.P. Bhusan, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedic, P.M.C.H., Dhanbad from 03.10.2012 till January 2016. The petitioner submits that he submitted all the medical documents to his department but ignoring the same the department proceeded against the petitioner on the charge of unauthorized absence. A charge-sheet was served to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply. As his reply was found unsatisfactory, he was proceeded against. A proper regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The petitioner participated in the said enquiry. The petitioner also furnished some medical documents in support of his contention. The enquiry officer enquired into the misconduct and thereafter submitted his enquiry report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges of remaining unauthorizedly absent.

4. Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the same. Considering the enquiry report and the reply, the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 01.04.2014 imposed the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner being, aggrieved preferred, a writ application before this Court being W.P. No. 5095 of 2013. Since there was a provision of appeal in the Act, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2015 thereafter the revision was also dismissed.

5. Counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid dismissal order, appellate order and the revisional order on the ground that the punishment is excessive and does not commensurate with the charge. He submits that the petitioner was charged for the misconduct as enumerated in Rule 146.2 (III) and 147 (IV). He submits that the first charge is in respect of absence without leave and the second one relates to withdrawing from duty of his service without permission. He submits that the petitioner was not wilfully absent from his duty as he was under medical treatment and he was not in a position to attend the duty. He submits that the enquiry report will also suggest that he had submitted his medical documents before the enquiry officer, but merely on the ground that he was not an indoor patient and he did not get himself treated at any railway hospital, his misconduct was proved. He submits that as per the Railway Protection Force Rules there are several other punishments which could have been infected upon the petitioner but the puni