1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned orders Annexure P-5 dated 1.3.2000 passed by respondent No.5, Annexure P-7 dated 25.10.2001 passed by respondent No.4 in departmental appeal and Annexure P-9 dated 7.3.2003 passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts is necessary for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to state that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was serving on the post of Constable/Bugler. He remained absent w.e.f. 3.8.1999 to 2.9.1999 and his past record was also found to be bad as he remained unauthorisedly absent for 274 days on two earlier occasions. Therefore, he was subjected to a departmental inquiry and two charges were framed against him which read thus :

"ARTICLE- I

That, the said No.920990014 Ct/Bug. No. Hanumantha of HQ/l07 Bn. RAF/CRPF while functioning as Ct/Bug committed disobedience of orders/neglect of duty/remissness in discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member of Force in that he deserted from HQ/l07 Coy lines on 3.8.1999 without sanction of leave or prior permission from competent authority. Thus he acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force and punishable U/S 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949.

ARTICLE- II

That, the said No. 920990014 Ct/Bug. N. Hanumantha of HQ/l07 Bn. while functioning in the aforesaid capacity during the aforesaid period, repeated his acts of misconduct in his capacity as a member of Force by deserting from lines on 3.8.1999 of which he had become habitual. Thus he acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of Force and punishable U/S 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949."

The imputation in regard to the charges is also the part of Annexure P-l , which is entire charge-sheet.

3. Needless to emphasise, the petitioner refuted the charges as a result of which the departmental witnesses were examined. According to the petitioner, opportunity to lead evidence and to cross-examine the depatmental witnesses was not provided to him. However, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents submits that the department gave opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses as well as allowed opportunity to petitioner to examine himself. On completion of the departmental enquiry since both the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order Annexure P- 5 of removal of the petitioner from the service which was ultimately affirmed in appeal and revision. Hence this petition has been filed.

4. Shri Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two submissions. First submission of his is that the charge No.1 is in respect to desertion and it cannot be framed in view of section 10 (m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act'). By inviting my attention to Rule 31 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules'), it has been put-forth by the learned counsel that the term "desertion" as emphasized in section 9 (f) would mean only that an employee if he does not return of his own free will or is not apprehended within sixty days of the commencement of the desertion, absence or overstay of leave. By inviting my attention to clause (c) of Rule 31, it has been contended that if the employee remains absent more than sixty days, then the Commandant shall publish in the Force Order the findings of the Court of Enquiry and the absentee shall be declared a deserter from the. Force from the date of his illegal absence. The contention of learned counsel is that if the imputation regarding charges against Article-I is read in proper perspective, it is gathered that the petitioner appeared in the Unit on 3.9.1999 which would mean that he remained absent w.e.f