Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Shri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tej Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the quashing of the order of compulsory retirement dated 23.5.2000 passed by respondent No. 2, Commandant, 85, Bn. Central Reserve Police Force, Bokajan, Assam, Appellate Order dated 14.8.2000, passed by respondent No. 4, Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Allahabad and Revisional Order dated 1.1.2008, passed by respondent No. 5, Inspector General of Police, Central Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow, U.P. Further direction has been sought commanding the concerned respondents to treat the petitioner as regular/reinstated in his service w.e.f., 23.5.2000 (date of compulsory retirement) to 7.1.2004 (date of superannuation) and to ensure payment of full salary and other emoluments and permissible benefits under the Law alongwith 18% interest to the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working on the post of Hawaldar in Central Reserve Police Force at Bokajan, Assam was charge-sheeted on 27.11.1999 with the imputation that he was granted leave of 15 days from 3.8.1999 to 15.8.1999. He absented from duty for 42 days from 19.8.1999 to 30.9.1999 without permission of the competent authority. He has submitted the proof of illness and prior to this absence, he was also absent for 64 days from 26.4.1999 to 28.6.1999 on the ground of illness, which amounts to misconduct as per Section-11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act,

4. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 23.12.1999 to the respondent No. 2, stating that he was sent to Base Hospital Gauhati, Assam on 30.10.1999 by the commandant for treatment. He is recovering after operation of piles and he cannot submit his reply to the charge-sheet and he may be granted time till discharge from Hospital.

5. On 5.1.2000, the petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge-sheet, stating that due to dispute in the family and illness, he could not join his duty in time, but kept on sending information by registered post to the Commandant, informing about his problems. None of his leave applications were replied. He is not a habitual late comer. An Enquiry Officer, respondent No. 3, was appointed to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and he submitted his enquiry report with the finding that the petitioner is found guilty of 42 days unauthorized absence from 20.8.1999 to 30.9.1999 without any justifiable reasons. From his leave record, it is clear that he was also absent without any reason from 26.4.1999. 28.6.1999 and therefore, he is habitual absentee and charges against him stand proved. On 1.5.2000, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner annexing therein that the enquiry report and the petitioner was granted 15 days time to submit reply to the same. The petitioner replied to the notice stating that his statement and reply submitted earlier contains all the necessary and relevant facts and he has noting to state further.

6. By the impugned punishment order dated 23.5.2000, the respondent No. 2 directed compulsory retirement of petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an Appeal on 8.6.2000, before the respondent No. 4 which was dismissed by the order dated 18.8.2000 and his revision was also dismissed by the respondent No. 5 by the order dated 1.1.2001.

7. The respondents have filed their Counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and has previously over stayed leave for 64 days without any permission and when he again absented for 42 days from 20.8.1999 to 30.9.1999, he was charge-sheeted and enquiry was conducted against him. He has taken the defence that he was forcibly detained by his relatives but he did not lodged any complaint against his relatives. He has committed serious misconduct and his appeal and revision has also been turn