R. B. MISRA, J. Heard Sri J. S. Tomar learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. In this petition the orders dated 9-12-1997 and 4-12-1998 passed by the respondents dismissing the appeal and the revision against the dismissal from service was challenged by the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner while functioning as Constable in 46 Bn. CRPF during December 94 committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he after being relieved by GC, CRPF Rampur (U. P.) on transfer to this unit on 2-12-1994 (AN) sought permission to avail 7 days casual leave and did not report in the unit and absented himself from duties w. e. f. 15-12-1994 (FN) till ordering of D. E. without any information/permission from the competent authority. Sri Surjeet Singh D/c of 46 Bn, CRPF was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the charge framed against Ex. Ct. Rajendra Singh Yadav. A full fledged enquiry was conducted and he was given full opportunity to defend his case but he did not produce any evidence/documents in his support. On the basis of evidence adduced during the course of enquiry, the articles of charges framed against him was proved beyond any shadow of doubt. As a result of departmental enquiry the disciplinary authority i. e. , Commandant 46 Bn. CRPF has relied upon the enquiry report, found Ex Ct. Rajendra Singh Yadav not a fit person to be retained in the force and passed the order of dismissal of said Ex. Const. from service w. e. f. 9-9-1995 ANG vide his office order No. P. VIII-4/95, 46 EC-II dated 9-9- 1995. 4. Aggrieved with the orders of punishment of dismissal from service No. 880820521 Ex. Ct. Rajendra Singh Yadav preferred an appeal dated 6-6-1997 to the DIGP, CRPF, Rampur (U. P.) against the aforesaid order of Commandant 46 Bn. CRPF. The appellate authority i. e. , DIGP, CRPF, Kanpur (U. P.) considered the appeal of the said individual and rejected the same vide his office order No. R-XIII-1/97-I dated 9-12- 1997 after due consideration. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the appellate authority i. e. , DIGP, CRPF Rampur (U. P.) said Ex. Ct. CRPF. The appellate authority i. e. , DIGP, CRPF, Kanpur (U. P.) considered the appeal of the said individual and rejected the same vide his office order No. R-XIII-1/97-I dated 9-12- 1997 after due consideration. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the appellate authority i. e. , DIGP, CRPF Rampur (U. P.) said Ex. Ct. Rajendra Singh Yadav moved to High Court of Allahabad for redressal of his grievance and filed Writ Petition No. 27601/98. Since the provisions of revision petition is provided under 20 of the CRPF Act and Rules 1955 against the orders passed, in the appeal, the High Court Allahabad dismissed W. P. filed by said Ex. Ct on the ground of alternative remedy. Following the Courts judgment given in his Writ Petition Ex. Ct. Rajendra Singh Yadav submitted a revision petition. 6. However, after going through the entire service career of the petitioner the Inspector General of Police CS CRPF Lucknow (U. P.) respondent No. 1 rejected the revision of the petitioner vide its order dated 4-12-1998. In the impugned order it was mentioned that the petitioner did not produce medical certificates during the course of D. E. which he failed to do so for the reasons best known to him. However, it is noticed that as per photocopy of medical certificate the petitioner remained admitted in Hospital w. e. f. 13-12-1994 to 22-7-1995 whereas he was arrested by the Addl. DIGP, GC, CRPF, Rampur (U. P.) on 22-7-1995 from quarter No. 18 Type-I special GC, CRPC, Campus Rampur, this shows that the medical certificate is either false or fabricated. The date year of Medical certificate is also tampered at two/three places and it has not been attested by the CMO. 7. The revisional authority has also noticed on the contention of the petitioner that he was not given full opportunity to defend his case and to produce evidence/documents in support of his illness is not tenable as he was given full opportunity to defend his case but he did not submit any documents/oral evidence during the course of enquiry. Accordingly the respondent No. 1 affirmed the order of the appellate authority affirming the view taken by the disciplinary authority, and dismissed the revision by its order dated 4-12-1998. 8. In the counter-affidavit it has been submitted that the petitioner was absent from duty w. e. f. 15-12- 1994 till arrested by the Addl. Accordingly the respondent No. 1 affirmed the order of the appellate authority affirming the view taken by the disciplinary authority, and dismissed the revision by its order dated 4-12-1998. 8. In the counter-affidavit it has been submitted that the petitioner was absent from duty w. e. f. 15-12- 1994 till arrested by the Addl. D. I. G. P. Group Centre, C. R. P. F. , Rampur on 20-7-1995 from his quarter in Group Centre C. R. P. F. , Rampur. He was released from judicial custody from 25-7-1995 and placed under suspension to face the departmental enquiry ordered against him. He did not produce any evidence about his treatment in District Hospital Budaun in his defence during the course of departmental enquiry. Hence his contention in this regard is not tenable. As such according to the respondent the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent without any permission from 15-12-1994 till he was arrested on 20-7-1995. Wilful absence from duty without valid reasons is a serious misconduct in the Force and deserves dismissal under Section 11 (1) of C. R. P. F. Act, 1949. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 30415 of 1998, Mirza Barkat Ali v. Inspector General of Police, Allahabad and others, on May 24, 2002 [since reported in 2002 (2) LBESR 548 (All), where the punishment was found to be too harsh and the respondents were directed to reconsider for awarding lessor punishment. Mr. Mirza Barkat Ali was not arrested for alleged absence from duty. The writ petitioner had endeavour to give proper explanation alongwith medical certificate of the C. M. O. as such the decision of Mirza Barkat Ali is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of Shamsher Bahadur v. State of U. P. and others, reported in (1993)1 UPLBEC 488. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this case is also not applicable in the present case. 10. In 1997 (2) LBESR 922 (SC): (1997)6 SCC 381 , State of Punjab and others v. Bakhshish Singh, the Supreme Court held that it is the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate punishment, the Civil Court or appellate authority cannot substitute its own view to that of the finding of disciplinary authority imposed on the delinquent official on the nature of punishment. The Court is also not to sit over the finding of the disciplinary authority in view of the (1997)7 SCC 463 , Union of India and another v. G. Ganayantham, and also2000 (3) LBESR 644 (SC): (1998)9 SCC 220 , UPSRTC v. Har Narain and others. 11. In view of the above observation the disciplinary authority and the reviewing authority in reference to the direction given by this Court has decided the revision correctly, there is no scope of any interference in these findings. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .