JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The challenge made in this writ petition is the order by which the petitioner has been removed from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry. 2. The petitioner while was serving as constable (G.D.) under the respondents was issued with the memo of charge sheet dated 08.10.03 proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. While furnishing the charge sheet, he was directed to submit his representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. The charge against the petitioner was for unauthorisedly absence from duty by way of overstaying leave earlier granted. The period of such unauthorized absence was from 13.11.02 to 25.05.03 (total 195 days). The charge reads as follows: That the No. 871240606 CT/GD P. Goswami of D/49 Bn., CRPF while functioning as CT/GD committed an act of misconduct and disobedience of order/neglect of duty/remissness in the discharge of his duty/other misconduct of misbehavior in his capacity as a member of the Force Under Section. 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that he overstayed from leave w.e.f. 13.11.02 to 25.05.03 without any valid reasons or permission from the competent authority and he reported in Bn. HQR on 26.05.2003 (FN) after overstaying for 195 days. (B.S. Gill) Commandant 49 Bn. CRPF 3. Along with the article of charge, the petitioner was also furnished with the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of article of the charge. Further he was also furnished with the lists of documents and witnesses. 4. In the writ petition, there is no indication as to what the petitioner did after receipt of the charge sheet. Be that as it may, after issuance of the charge sheet, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 12.12.03 appointed the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer by his order dated 20.12.03 informed the petitioner that preliminary enquiry would be conducted on the same date, i.e. on 20.12.03. According to the petitioner since he remained engaged on duty he could not effectively participate in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Certain allegations have been made in the writ petition that he was forced to sign in the day to day enquiry proceedings. According to the petitioner the documents were examined and exhibited in his absence. 5. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.03.04. Certain allegations have been made in the writ petition that he was forced to sign in the day to day enquiry proceedings. According to the petitioner the documents were examined and exhibited in his absence. 5. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.03.04. According to the petitioner he was not furnished with the copy of the enquiry report but he was forced to sign on the report. 6. After the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner having been found guilty of the charge, has been imposed with penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. It is the legality and validity of the order of removal passed against the petitioner which has been questioned by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged procedural irregularities in conducting the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. 7. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to state here as to what had led to the situation in which the disciplinary authority decided to hold the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. As per the own admission of the petitioner, he was granted 21days of leave w.e.f. 23.10.02 to 12.11.02.According to the petitioner while he was availing his leave he had fallen sick requiring his treatment in GMC. Hospital. It is the stand of the petitioner that he was advised complete rest. After remaining absent for the aforesaid period from 13.11.02 to 16.05.03 (altogether 195 days), the petitioner reported for duty. The petitioner was allowed to join his duty and thereafter the departmental enquiry was conducted against him, about which mention has been made above. 8. According to the petitioner since he submitted the medical certificate for his absence for 195 days, the respondents ought not have conducted the enquiry eventually holding him guilty of the charge of unauthorisedly absence and then removed him from service. 9. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contention of the petitioner that there was procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. According to them the petitioner was provided with all reasonable opportunities to defend his case. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the documents which the petitioner had submitted in support of his alleged illness did not suggest any serious illness on the part of the petitioner. Further the petitioner was treated as outdoor patient in the GMC Hospital. 10. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the documents which the petitioner had submitted in support of his alleged illness did not suggest any serious illness on the part of the petitioner. Further the petitioner was treated as outdoor patient in the GMC Hospital. 10. As regards the allegations that the petitioner was not provided with opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and that they were examined and documents were exhibited in absence of the petitioner, the respondents have denied the same. According to them the enquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioner and he was provided with all reasonable opportunities of being heard as per the procedure envisaged under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. 11. Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents as per the provision of Section 9, 10 and 11 of the CRPF Act, could not have imposed the penalty of removal from service. According to him the petitioner having not been prosecuted Under Section. 10 of the Act and he having not been found guilty in any such proceeding, the respondents could not have taken recourse to the purported enquiry and removed the petitioner from his service. His further submission is that since the petitioner was charged Under Section 11 of the Act which provides for minor punishment, the petitioner would not have been removed from his service which is a major penalty. Mr. Majumdar has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2002(3) GLT336 (Yumnam Dimbajit Singh v. D.S. Poonia and Anr.) 12. Mr. N. Borah, learned C.G.S.C. submits that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force, ought not have abstained from duty without any intimation and permission. He submits that since the charge against the petitioner has been established in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the penalty of removal from service. Referring to the various documents annexed to the writ petition, he submits that the contention of the petitioner that he was not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard and that even the enquiry report was not provided to him, is not tenable. He submits that the documents itself speak the truth. According to him the petitioner by way of admitting the facts relating to his absence from duty has virtually admitted his guilt. 13. He submits that the documents itself speak the truth. According to him the petitioner by way of admitting the facts relating to his absence from duty has virtually admitted his guilt. 13. There is no dispute that the petitioner remained absent from duty for the period from 13.11.02 to 25.05.02 (195 days). There is also no dispute that the petitioner remained absent from duty without any intimation and/or permission which fact Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted. However, he submits that the situation was beyond the control of the petitioner in which he could not furnish any information and/or intimation to the respondents. He submits that since both the petitioner and his wife were suffering from serious ailments, it was not possible for the petitioner to send intimation to his commanding officer. 14. Although the petitioner has alleged procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry even to the extent of urging that the enquiry was conducted behind his back and that the report was not furnished to him, but on perusal of the documents, it is seen that such contentions on the part of the petitioner were not correct. The grounds which have been urged in the writ petition are not the grounds urged in the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF. 15. As noticed above, there is no mention in the writ petition as to what the petitioner did after receipt of the memo of charge sheet. By the memo of charge sheet, while leveling the charge against the petitioner, he was asked to submit written statement of defence within 15 days. Thus, it will be seen that the petitioner was provided with opportunity to submit written statement of defence. 16. In the impugned order dated 18.05.04, it has been clearly indicated that the petitioner pleaded guilty of the charge framed against him in his written statement to which there is no denial on the part of the petitioner. As regards the plea of the petitioner that he was not provided with opportunity to make representation against the enquiry report, same is also not tenable. As regards the plea of the petitioner that he was not provided with opportunity to make representation against the enquiry report, same is also not tenable. By Annexure-7 communication dated 29.04.04, the petitioner was advised to submit written statement against the enquiry report about which there is also mention in the impugned order dated 18.5.04 wherein it has been clearly indicated that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to submit representation. The petitioner submitted his representation on 06.05.04 through the O.C. D/49 Bn. CRPF vide letter No. P. VIII-1/06-D/49. In the representation, the petitioner simply contended that he was satisfied with enquiry report. This aspect of the matter has not been denied by the petitioner. 17. Apart from the aforesaid opportunity as reflected in the impugned order dated 18.05.04, the petitioner was also given additional chance to put up his case in person. He was heard in person in the office of the disciplinary authority on 15.05.04. In such personal hearing he had nothing to state, but he simply prayed for forgiveness. 18. Considering all the above aspects of the matter, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. Section 9 of the Act deals with "more heinous offences" while Section 10 deals with "less heinous offences". Section 10 deals with absence without leave, or without sufficient cause. Every member of the Force who absents himself without leave, or without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three months' pay, or with both. 19. According to Mr. Majumdar since absence of the petitioner from duty is in the category of less heinous offence and the petitioner has not been punished with imprisonment an envisaged Under Section 10, the disciplinary authority could not have taken recourse to the departmental enquiry so as to remove the petitioner from service. His further argument as noted above is that the charge having been framed Under Section 11 dealing with minor punishment, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the major penalty of removal from service. 20. The aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Majumdar can not be accepted for more than one reason. The memo of charge sheet was issued under Rule 27 of the Rules. Rule 27 is under Chapter 6 under the head "Discipline". 20. The aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Majumdar can not be accepted for more than one reason. The memo of charge sheet was issued under Rule 27 of the Rules. Rule 27 is under Chapter 6 under the head "Discipline". It lays down the procedure for awarding the punishment. Various allegations have been named who are competent to impose punishment of dismissal or removal from service. Detail procedure has been laid down under Rule 27 towards conducting the departmental enquiry. Thus, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority cannot take recourse to Rule 27 of the Rules and that until and unless the members of the Force are taken up Under Section9 and 10 of the Act, they cannot be imposed with the penalty of removal and/or dismissal from service. 21. As regards the plea that the charge itself having been mentioned to be Under Section 11, the petitioner could not have been imposed with the penalty of removal from service, suffice it to say that while drawing up the departmental proceeding under Rule 27 of the Rules, a mention has been made of Section 11 of the Act so as to indicate the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Section11 of the Act speaks of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in the capacity as a member of the Force. These expressions were made use of while issuing the charge sheet under Rule 27 of the Rules making a mention of Section 11 of the Act. Further the punishments provided are in addition and/or in lieu of other penalties which may include the penalty of removal and/or dismissal from service. 22. If the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for the aforesaid period nothing precluded the respondents to conduct the enquiry and thereafter to impose the penalty of removal from service. The decision on which Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, i.e. Yumnam Dimbajit Singh (supra), is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the said case dealing with the provision of Section 11 of the Act, and Rule 31 of the Rules, it was held that since no punishment was prescribed, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the penalty of removal from service on the basis of the charge levelled against the petitioner. 23. In the said case dealing with the provision of Section 11 of the Act, and Rule 31 of the Rules, it was held that since no punishment was prescribed, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the penalty of removal from service on the basis of the charge levelled against the petitioner. 23. In the case of Union of India v. Mithilesh Ch. Gupta reported in 2000 (3) GLT 62, the Division Bench of this Court dealing with the situation in somewhat similar circumstances, held that removal of the member of the disciplined force for unauthorisedly absence from duty was justified. In that case, learned Single Judge while interfering with the order of removal from service provided for imposition of other penalty other than removal or dismissal. Interfering with the same it was emphasized that it is the disciplinary authority to decide what should be the penalty. In that case the Railway Protection Force personnel remained unauthorisedly absent and the Division Bench of this Court held that such unauthorisedly absence necessarily entail punishment of removal from service. The aforesaid decision was carried on appeal and the Apex Court in its decision reported in [2003] 2 SCR 377 (Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and Ors.) affirming the Judgment of the Division Bench, held that the scope of judicial review in the matter of penalty or punishment is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same. 24. In the instant case, the facts are clearly admitted. The petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a period of 195 days. When the facts are admitted, it implies the guilt. In this connection, the decision of the Apex Court reported in [1971] 2 SCR 645 may be referred to. It was also a case of a police constable who remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. It was held by the Apex Court that when the facts were admitted by the incumbent himself, same amounted to admission of guilt. 25. For the foregoing reasons, discussions and conclusions, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed