Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Petitioner has challenged order dated 30.08.1990 (Annexure1) of his removal from service so also rejection of his appeal vide order dated 26.07.1991 (Annexure 2). 2. Petitioner joined service in Railway Protection Force as Constable on 210.1977. While he was posted as Constable (Fire) in Idgah Fire Service Branch, without seeking prior permission, he proceeded on leave from 011.1989 and finally reported for duty on 10.01.1990, for which charge-sheet dated 02.02.1990 was issued under Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 ("RPF Rules") for the allegation, inter alia that after availing of weekly rest on 011.1989, he was to report for duty on 011.1989 but he failed to report and thus remained on wilful absence from 011.1989 to 09.01.1990 (65 days) and this act of his wilful absence was considered to be gross misconduct. After holding regular departmental inquiry, imputed charge was found to be proved and disciplinary authority after having concurred with finding recorded by inquiry officer, held the petitioner guilty and punished with penalty of removal from service vide order dated 30.08.1990 (Annexure 1) against which his appeal was also rejected vide order dated 26.07.1991 (Annexure 2). 3. Counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner never committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge-sheet and because of his sickness he remained absent from duty which was not wilful and, therefore, disciplinary authority committed error in holding the petitioner guilty of wilful absence and passed order of removal from service. Counsel contends that punishment of removal from service is totally unjust, unfair and arbitrary and in no manner commensurate with charge of wilful absence on account of his sickness found proved and that apart, looking to his past service which otherwise remained unblemished, impugned punishment is shockingly disproportionate, requires interference. In support of his contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Bhagwanlal vs. Commnr of Police Delhi, AIR 2004 SC 2131 and of this Court in Union of India vs. Babulal Yadav, 2005 (10) RDD 4541 (Raj) (DB). 4. Respondentsin their reply inter alia averred that petitioner unauthorizedly proceeded on leave without seeking prior permission or submitting any leave application from 011.1989 and remained absent upto 09.01.1990 for 65 days. 4. Respondentsin their reply inter alia averred that petitioner unauthorizedly proceeded on leave without seeking prior permission or submitting any leave application from 011.1989 and remained absent upto 09.01.1990 for 65 days. Counsel for respondents contends that once imputed charge of wilful absence found proved in course of regular inquiry conducted under Rule 153 of RPF Rules, the only punishment as provided under Rule 156(b)(iii) is of removal from service as it was incumbent upon disciplinary authority to ensure maintenance of integrity and discipline in the Force and no lesser punishment could have been imposed and that being so, appellate authority after examining record of inquiry upheld finding of guilt with respect to wilful absence proved against petitioner and further observed that being armed force of Union of India its members are expected to maintain high sense of discipline and code of behavior and breaker of norm of discipline is required to be dealt with hard hands. Shri Bhandari in support of his contentions, relied upon decision of Apex Court in Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India, 2003 (3) SCC 309 . 5. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. This fact remains undisputed that after availing of weekly rest on 011.1989, petitioner at its own remained absent from duty and no intimation or application was sent to competent authority with regard to his absence and period of his absence which finally stood proved in course of inquiry that there was no intimation sent by petitioner for absence of 65 days; and justification offered with regard to his sickness was not accepted by inquiry officer as he failed to show his illness if at all there was any. Rule 104.3 of RPF Rules specifically provides - “No member of the Force shall leave his station even on holidays without specific permission of authority empowered to grant him casual leave.” 6. Rule147 of RPF Rules categorically adumbrate offences" relatable to duty of enrolled members and its Sub-rule (vi) deals with "absent without proper intimation," which reads thus - (vi) absenting himself without proper intimation to his controlling authority or without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him or failing without reasonable cause to report himself for duty on the expiry of such leave;" 7. Rule 156 of RPF Rules pertains to imposing of punishment of dismissal etc., and its Sub-rule (b) specifically provides penalty of removal from service in cases of absence from duty and it runs thus: "156. Imposing of punishment of dismissal, etc.-Before coming to any lower punishment, the disciplinary authority with a view to ensuring maintenance of integrity in the force shall consider the award of punishment of dismissal or removal from service to any member of the Force in following cases, namely:- (b) Removal from service: (iii) absencefrom duty without proper intimation or overstay beyond sanctioned leave without sufficient cause." 8. Disciplinary authority taking note of Scheme of RPF Rules and having concurred with finding of absence from duty, punished the petitioner with penalty in terms of Rule 156(b)(iii) of RPF Rules and appellate authority also while upholding guilt of petitioner independently examined quantum of punishment in question and concurrent with the same after considering Scheme of RPF Rules and after due application of mind, observed- "RPF being armed force of Union of India, its members are expected to maintain high sense of discipline and code of behavior and breaker of norm of disciplinary is required to be dealt with hard hands.". 9. Appellate authority also observed that remaining unauthorised absent from duty without intimation is a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 17(i) of the RPF Act, 1957 and such serious charge cannot be taken lightly and the Force cannot afford to have such irresponsible and indiscipline members to be retained on its roll. In this view of matter, in my opinion when statute, itself provide cases where imposition of a particular penalty is required to be inflicted in such like nature of misconduct and indisputably, instant case of petitioner is covered by Rule 156(b) (iii) of RPF Rules as he proceeded on leave without proper intimation and seeking prior permission of his superiors and this act on his part found proved in course of inquiry where he failed to prove his defence with a view to justify his absence as reasonable or otherwise sufficient cause and it is not the case of petitioner that he has ever sent any leave application or took prior permission of the authority when proceeded. 10. 10. ApexCourt in Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India (Supra), while examining scope of Rules 147 and 156 of RPF Rules finally observed thus:-"Rule 147 (vi) deals with the case of absence without proper intimation. A mere application for grant of leave cannot be construed to be a proper intimation for absence. Rule 104 indicates various modalities governing grant of leave. There is prohibition on any member of the Force to leave station even on holidays without specific permission of the authority empowered to grant casual leave. These modalities having been enumerated in Rule 104 clearly bring out essence of discipline, which is required to be observed. Absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be grave offence warranting removal from service. Therefore, mere making an application for leave cannot be construed to be of any consequence in the background of strict requirement of giving proper intimation. "... Stress is on the expression proper. It means appropriate, in the required manner, fit, suitable, apt. The mere making of a request of leave, which has not been accepted is not a proper intimation." "In the interpretation of statutes, the Courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain. The authorities were, therefore, justified in holding that he was guilty of the offence of absence from duty without proper intimation." 11. In view of what has been observed (Supra) dealing with scope of scheme of RPF Rules, once this remains undisputed and un-controverted that petitioner remained absent from duty without seeking prior permission or sanction of leave for 65 days which was found proved as his wilful absence in course of regular inquiry where he failed to prove his defence by justifying his cause of sickness as reasonable, in my opinion penalty of removal from service is required to be inflicted upon him under the statute, which has rightly been upheld by appellate authority and I find no error in impugned orders of punishment which is in consonance with Rule 156(b)(iii) of RPF Rules. 12. As regards Judgment in Bhagwanlal Arya vs. Commnr. 12. As regards Judgment in Bhagwanlal Arya vs. Commnr. of Police, Delhi (Supra), cited by Shri Mehrishi, it will be of no assistance for the reason that it was a case where petitioner proceeded on leave after due permission and there was throughout intimation sent to the authorities with regard to his illness; and that apart, there was no requirement as provided in instant Rule 156 of RPF Rules for the charge of absence from duty. 13. As regards other Judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Babulal Yadav (Supra), cited by Shri Mehrishi, it was also a case of overstaying leave on medical ground and there was no such requirement under statute as provided in instant RPF Rules and a distinction was made between over-staying of leave and who proceeded on leave without permission but both have been considered under Rule 156 of instant RPF Rules at par. 14. In my opinion, indiscipline in service particularly in Armed Forces have to be dealt with sternly and in view of what has been observed by appellate authority after examining Scheme of Rules, 1987 and other factors taken note of , petitioner fails to show how impugned penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges and hence I do not find any justification for interference in impugned orders of punishment. 15. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.