1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by office order dated 19th August, 2010 passed by the Commandant of Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, whereby the petitioner has been visited with punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. the date of issuance of the order and his name has been directed to be struck off from the strength of the said Group Centre on the same date, however, he has been sanctioned minimum compassionate allowance as per rule 41 (2) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules of 1972). It has been further directed that his period of desertion i.e. 4.1.2010 to 10.1.2010 be registered as 7 days of E.O.L.

2. Petitioner submits that once the punishment of unauthorÁed absence/desertion has been regularÁed by sanctioning E.O.L., then it may be deemed that respondents have condoned the act of delinquency of the petitioner and, therefore, there existed no justification to hand over such punishment of dismissal from service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order of punishment is too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and, therefore, the Appellate Authority has wrongly dismissed his appeal dated 17.9.2010 vide order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure P-2).

4. It is petitioner's contention that he was appointed in CRPF on the post of Constable (Driver) vide order dated 21.10.1994 (Annexure P-3), which was issued by ADIGP. He submits that vide office order dated 27.1.2010, there was a direction to complete preliminary inquiry against the petitioner for having deserted the Group Centre campus on 4.1.2010 (forenoon) and returning back to the campus on 10.1.2010 (afternoon). After this preliminary inquiry, charge-sheet was served on the petitioner by the Commandant vide Annexure P-5 and thereafter Departmental Enquiry was conducted, in which the inquiry officer had submitted his report (Annexure P-7) and the Inquiry Officer held that despite giving opportunity of hearing and producing witnesses, he did not produce any document or witness in his defence. Therefore, on the basis of material collected in the Departmental Inquiry, charges made against the petitioner were found to be proved.

5. It is petitioner's contention that petitioner had handed over his leave application to MTFAV for forwarding the same to competent authority, inasmuch as he had received telephonic call from his native place on 1.1.2010 that his wife is not keeping well and again there was a call on 3.1.2010, therefore, he had to leave the place of work, but he had done so after handing over the leave application to MTFAV and if such MTFAV had not informed the superior authorities, then petitioner cannot be punished.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in case of Dal Chand Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others as reported in ILR (2012) MP 202 to support his contention that where DIG is disciplinary authority for the petitioner, who was working as Sub-Inspector, then issuance of charge-sheet and punishment of Inquiry Officer by Superintendent of Police, who is subordinate to the disciplinary authority is without authority and proceedings initiated by unauthorÁed person would be illegal and entire subsequent action taken shall also stand vitiated.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Singh Jat v. State of M.P. as reported in 2013 (II) MPWN 86, wherein the ratio of law is that punishment of removal from service for remaining unauthorÁedly absent is liable to be set aside if unauthorÁed absence was regularÁed by granting extraordinary leave. In this regard Coordinate Bench has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others as reported in (2004) 4 SCC 560. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of