JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 20.04.2018 whereby the salary of the petitioner has been reduced by one time scale for two years without cumulative effect. Further, he has challenged the order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal and also order dated 06.10.2018 whereby his Revision Petition has been rejected.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that solely based on the preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner has been punished. Such action of the respondents is impermissible under the settled principles of law.

The witnesses were examined behind the back of petitioner in the preliminary enquiry, and the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine them also. He lastly submits that in absence of proper departmental enquiry, the entire proceeding is vitiated, so is the order of punishment.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that there are evidence to suggests that the petitioner has over stayed beyond his permissible leave. From the materials available on record and also from the statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the petitioner who is in a disciplined force, remained unauthorizedly absent for more 53 days, thus punishment has been imposed. He submits that the punishment commensurates with the proved misconduct and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot sit in appeal over the order of punishment.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was appointed as ASI in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). While he was posted in an Unit of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at Kargali, he prayed for grant of leave. The leave was sanctioned for 04 days i.e., from 22.10.2017 to 27.10.2017. The leave was granted on the ground that his mother-in-law was ill. On 26.10.2017, the petitioner made a request to extend his leave on the ground that he fell ill. The employer did not respond to such request. Again on 11.11.2017, the petitioner intimated that since he has been hospitalized, he is not in a position to join and his leave be extended till he recovers. On 17.11.2017, he also sent an e-mail and thereafter he has forwarded the medical prescriptions and documents. The respondents directed the petitioner to submit a report, which the petitioner submitted on 02.12.2017. As the petitioner did not join within the prescribed period, which he was supposed to, the respondents conducted a preliminary enquiry. On 08.01.2018, the report was submitted wherein, it was opined that his absence was not willful and was beyond his control, as the petitioner was undergoing treatment. Thereafter, again another preliminary enquiry was conducted and on 21.05.2018, as per the said report, the Preliminary Enquiry Officer found the allegation against the petitioner to be prima facie correct. The report concluded that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent beyond the prescribed period. On 09.03.2018, i.e., much after the two preliminary reports, the petitioner was charge-sheeted. The petitioner replied to the charge on 18.03.2018. The respondents thereafter, on 20.04.2018, passed the impugned order of punishment whereby the salary of the petitioner has been reduced to one time scale for two years without cumulative effect. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was rejected on 12.06.2018. The statutory revision also stood rejected on 06.10.2018 which led to this writ petition.

6. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was granted leave for four days i.e., from 22.10.2017 to 27.10.2017. It is the allegation of the respondents that the petitioner had over stayed and admittedly the petitioner did not join on 28.10.2017. The petitioner informed his employer that since he has not we