IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters involving members of the Armed Forces and the need for a higher standard of discipline.

JUDGMENT

1. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner who was working as a Rifleman(GD) in Assam Rifles had taken leave for the period 12.03.2016 to 08.04.2016, but however, failed to rejoin his duties after his leave expired, and in fact only reported back on 24.02.2017. After the petitioner rejoined his unit voluntarily, he was tried by the Summary Assam Rifles Court under Section 26(b) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and after the disciplinary proceedings by order dated 10.06.2017, was awarded the sentence of 'Dismissal from Service' w.e.f. from 10.06.2017. An Appeal against the dismissal order was also preferred before the Appellate Authority, but the same was dismissed by order dated 23.10.2018. The petitioner being aggrieved thereby has filed the instant writ petition.

2. The grounds of challenge of the impugned order of dismissal are that the statement made by the petitioner regarding explanation of his overstay of period of leave, was not considered, that his signatures in the records of inquiry were obtained under duress, and that the entire proceedings were bad in law, as the Commandant who had ordered for the trial of the petitioner had conducted the trial himself. It has also been contended that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the offence charged, as the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from joining his duties in time. Reference has also been made to Section 26(b) of the Assam Rifles Act, which the learned counsel submits, that before coming to any findings, the Authority must come to a conclusion that the petitioner overstayed his leave without sufficient cause. In the instant case, he contends, despite there being evidence regarding his cause of absence, the same was disregarded.

3. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted by the learned DSGI, that the petitioner had been accorded ample opportunity to defend himself during the entire disciplinary proceedings. It has been submitted that, a tentative charge sheet had been handed over to the petitioner on 29.05.2017, and hearing of charge took place on 30.05.2017, and that during the Summary of Evidence, the petitioner was given full opportunity to produce valid reasons to substantiate his unauthorized absence of 322 days from duty, which he failed to do. It is further submitted that, the entire proceedings as prescribed by law, and the Assam Rifles Act and Rules have been followed, and adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself and that proper procedure, which involved Hearing of Charge and recording of Summary of Evidence was followed. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that, the petitioner has been a perpetual offender for not rejoining his duties on time and absenting himself for long periods, without any information to his superiors, and that he had been absent on three occasions for elongated periods. It is lastly submitted that, though leniency was shown to the petitioner on earlier two occasions, his conduct has been detrimental to the discipline of the Force. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 709 in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Datta Linga Toshatwad, in support of the submissions advanced.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties, and carefully examined the materials on record. A perusal of the records as placed in the writ petition itself reveals that, the writ petitioner had been served a tentative charge sheet on 29.05.2017, and thereafter in the Summary of Evidence that was recorded in his presence and in the presence of independent witnesses, was also given adequate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses which he declined. The signatures of the writ petitioner are also duly appended which confirms his participation. In his statement, after the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses had been recorded, the writ petitioner has categorically admitted that he had overstayed his leave and that he