JUDGMENT : RAKESH TIWARI, J. 1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the charge sheet dated 11.6.1984 the enquiry proceedings and show cause notice pursuant thereto and order dated 2.3.1984 passed by the Director General, Railway Protection Force setting aside the order dated 22.3.1983 passed by Chief Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway. Calcutta- respondent No. 2 and the order dated 9.7.1986 passed by Commandant. Railway Protection Force, Faster Railway, Mughalsarai removing the petitioner from service. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner was posted as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force. His services were terminated vide order dated 18.12.1981 passed by the Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force (for short 'RPF) Mughalsarai on the ground of negligence on duty on 30.1.1981, 18.1.1981 and 25.3.1980. 3. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Chief Security Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 22.3.1983 holding that the petitioner would be deemed to be on suspension from the date of termination till the date of assumption of his duties. 4. Thereafter, another charge sheet dated 11.6.1984 was served upon the petitioner levelling the same charges which were the subject matter of challenge in the order of termination dated 18.12.1981 and validity and correctness of which had been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. At the time of admission, the following interim order was passed: Hon. A.N. Varma, J. Hon. J.N. Dubey, J. Issue notice. Meanwhile, until further orders of this Court no punishment shall be awarded to the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice (Annexure 8 to the petition). The petitioner may, however, show cause in the meantime against the impugned notice. Dt. 26.4.1985 Sd/- A.N. Varma, J. Sd/- J.N. Dubey, J. 6. As stated above, the aforesaid order was set aside by the Chief Security Officer vide order dated 22.3.1983. Thereafter, order dated 22.3.1983 passed by the Chief Security Officer was set aside by the Director General, Railway Protection Force vide order dated 2.3.1984 in exercise of suo motu powers of review under Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 and departmental charge sheet dated 11.6.1984 was issued. After conclusion of departmental proceedings, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with vide impugned order dated 9.7.1986. 7. After conclusion of departmental proceedings, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with vide impugned order dated 9.7.1986. 7. Contention of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination dated 9.7.1986 has been passed by way of endeavour on the part of the respondents to overcome the stay order granted by this Court. Since the sole intention of the respondents was to terminate the services of the petitioner, after grant of ad interim relief to the petitioner by this court, a round-about method was adopted by the respondents with a view to deny the legitimate objective by dispensing with the services of the petitioner on the basis of the same allegations against which, appeal of the petitioner was earlier allowed. 8. Sri Khare submitted that the impugned order dated 9.7.1986 has been passed on the ground that the petitioner was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital on 25.4.1985 and thereafter he absented himself from the hospital. He states that the true facts are that the petitioner was admitted in the Railway Hospital on 25.4.1985 as he was suffering from Sciatica and was confined to bed from 25.4.1985 to 26.5.1985. He submitted his joining report on 26.5.1985 supported by fitness certificate issued by the Railway Doctor. His joining report was not accepted by the Inspector who instead directed the Additional Divisional Medical Officer to check up the petitioner and to report as to whether he was fit or not. The petitioner was again admitted in the Railway Hospital on 26.5.1985 and remained there till 16.6.1985 when he was issued certificate of fitness dated 16.6.1985. 9. He vehemently urged that the respondents acted with material perversity in treating the aforesaid period as absent and that the ex parte order dated 9.7.1986 was passed without holding any enquiry proceedings and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel an allegation of absence is a charge of misconduct and has to be proved in regular departmental proceedings in which the delinquent employee has right of participation. 10. According to Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel an allegation of absence is a charge of misconduct and has to be proved in regular departmental proceedings in which the delinquent employee has right of participation. 10. The has relied upon the following conclusion arrived at by the Commandant, RPF, Eastern Railway, Mughalsari in the impugned order dated 9.7.86 to establish that the Commandant had lo pass major punishment of removal from service without proper service of show cause notice and enquiry report on the petitioner: ... Since all reasonable steps have been taken in the service of show cause notice but the delinquent has failed to acknowledge it, it is, therefore, decided to impose the proposed punishment as he has not submitted any reply which might have been considered. I, therefore, remove Sri Pandy from service with immediate effect. (emphasis supplied) 11. Sri Khare further contended that the penalty inflicted vide order dated 9.7.1986 upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. liven if the allegations are accepted to have been established, at best, it tantamounts to absence from the Railway Hospital for a period of one month and by no stretch of imagination can such charge lead to penalty of removal from service. 12. In support of his aforesaid contentions, Sri Khare placed reliance on the decisions in Union of India and others Vs. Giriraj Sharma, AIR 1994 SC 215 Chief Security Officer v. Singhasan Ravidas 1991 UPLBEC (1) 2001 and Girija Shankar Singh v. General Manager UPSRTC 1992 (II)UPLBEC 851. 13. On the other hand, Sri Lalji Sinha, appearing on behalf of the respondents slated that the petitioner was negligent in performance of his duties on 16.4.1983 when he failed to detect theft of 11 motor tyres. Sri Sinha states that after interim order was passed by this Court, order of removal from service was kept in abeyance and the petitioner was served with charge sheet for remaining on unauthorized leave from 24.4.1985 to 16.6.86. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to allege that relevant documents were not supplied to him. In fact, he was directed to inspect the record and take extract of the documents but he did not do so. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to allege that relevant documents were not supplied to him. In fact, he was directed to inspect the record and take extract of the documents but he did not do so. It is submitted by him that factual scenario is that the fitness certificate submitted by the petitioner did not show that it was issued by the Railway Hospital and the medical certificate was never received in the office of the respondents. He referred to Order dated 6.7.1984, Annexure 6 to the writ petition by which the petitioner was directed to inspect the records including the A.S.I's report at MGS/DN Post and to take extracts of the relevant extracts. Several opportunities were afforded to him to appear in the enquiry but he did not appear. Even enquiry report and show cause notice sent by registered post to him were returned back unserved. As such, there was no violation of any rule and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 14. It is submitted that the petitioner was member of Railway Protection Force. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr. AIR 1976 SC 736. Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the delinquent of that case being in service of disciplined force demanding strict adherence to rules and procedure and punishment of dismissal imposed did not warrant interference. The law laid down in the aforesaid case applies with full force to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is stated that In view of settled principle of law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India 1996 (L & S) 80. High Court cannot interfere with the findings of disciplinary authority based on evidence by reappriciating the evidence. 15. No other point has been argued by counsels for the parties. 16. After hearing counsels for the parties and going through the record, it appears that there is no conflict with the law laid down in the decisions relied upon by counsel for the petitioner. In Union of India v. Giriraj Sharma (Supra) Sri Giriraj Sharma, the employee had overstayed the leave period and Hon'ble the Apex Court held that he should be reinstated with all consequential benefits with liberty to impose minor punishment as punishment for overstaying was harsh and disproportionate. In Union of India v. Giriraj Sharma (Supra) Sri Giriraj Sharma, the employee had overstayed the leave period and Hon'ble the Apex Court held that he should be reinstated with all consequential benefits with liberty to impose minor punishment as punishment for overstaying was harsh and disproportionate. In; Chief Security Officer v. Singhasan Ravidas (supra) the Department did not consider enquiry into the alleged misconduct of concealment of theft on the part of Sri Singhasan Ravidas as practicable and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no justification for dispensing with the enquiry proceedings. In Girija Shankar Singh v. General Manager (supra), it has been held by a Single Judge of this Court held that simply because Sri Girija Shankar, a bus driver was late in his duty, termination from service was disproportionate to the guilt. The facts and circumstances of the case on hand are altogether difference from the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases. Order dated 6.7.1984 contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition clinches the issue whereby the petitioner was called upon to inspect the relevant records and if need be, can take extracts thereof. Show cause notice and the enquiry report were sent to him by registered post but were returned back unserved. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and the respondents had no other option in the circumstances but to proceed ex parte. Therefore, petitioner has to blame himself for lapses on his own part and cannot blame the respondents for passing ex parte order. For ready reference, Order dated 6.7.1984 is extracted below: No. CS 7/84 Dated 6.7.84 Sri Sabhajeet Pandey, RK/MGS- West through IPF-West Subject : Inspection of records and taking extracts thereof. Ref: Your application dated 20.6.84. You are asked to submit reply to the charge sheet within 14 days after inspecting the records and taking extracts within 7 days which you did not do. However, you are given another chance to inspect the records including the A.S.I's report at MGS/DN Post and take extracts of the relevant items. But it should clearly be understood that the reply to the C/sheet be submitted within 3 days from the date of inspection of the records failing which ex parte order will be passed. Sd/-Illegible S.O. MGS (emphasis supplied) 17. But it should clearly be understood that the reply to the C/sheet be submitted within 3 days from the date of inspection of the records failing which ex parte order will be passed. Sd/-Illegible S.O. MGS (emphasis supplied) 17. From perusal of record, it is crystal clear that theft of 11 motor tyres took place to which no explanation could be offered by the petitioner as he did not have the reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 18. It may be that petitioner's case was not prejudiced because he did not inspect the record and avail that opportunity when afforded to him. However, it is admitted on record by the respondents that show cause notice and copy of enquiry report sent to him by registered post remained unserved upon him. 19. Therefore, the decision to impose proposed punishment in the circumstances on the presumption that the petitioner has not replied to the notice etc., 'which might have been considered' is not proper. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was admitted in Railway Hospital which is a Government hospital and was not under treatment of any private doctor. Further he again fell ill on 16.6.1985, i.e., the day he reported for duly with Illness certificate and was again admitted to the Railway Hospital. If there was any doubt in the mind of the respondents, they could have got him medically checked up by Additional Divisional Medical Officer then and there. If a personnel suddenly fall ill, his absence cannot be said to be unauthorized if he reports back with medical certificate of Government hospital and explains his absence. The fact that petitioner was treated by the Railway Hospital during the period 25.4.1985 to 26.5.1985 could have been easily got verified. However, these facts cannot be overlooked as they cumulate to major punishment of dismissal from service without reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 20. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 2.3.1984 passed by the Director General, Railway Protection Force setting aside the order dated 22.3.1983 passed by Chief Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Fastern Railway, Calcutta-respondent No. 2 and the order dated 9.7.1986 passed by Commandant, Railway Protection Force, Faster Railway, Mughalsarai removing the petitioner from service are quashed. The respondents are directed to hold de-novo enquiry and proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs.