Judgment :- The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner joined as constable, in the CISF on 06.04.1988 and had undergone basic training at CISF Training Centre, Bokaro from 06.04.1988 to 212. 1988. Thereafter, he was deployed for duties in the following place. 1. PTPS Panki, Kanpur (UP) from 212. 1988 to 11.07.1993 2. ZSD Udaipur, (Rajasthan) from 12.07.1993 to 28.02.1994 3. 6th RB, Arakkonam from 01.03.1994 to 31.01.1995 4. NLC, Neyveli from 01.02.1995 to 31.05.1997 5. FCI, New Jalpaiguri from 01.06.1997 to 15.06.2001 6. TPT, Tuticorin from 16.06.2001 to 11.02.2002 2. The petitioner contends that he has an unblemished record for the past 14 years. He was sanctioned 15 days earned leave with effect from 08.05.2000 to 22.05.2000 by the third respondent herein. But, from 20.05.2000 to 14.06.2000, the doctor at his native place had advised him to undergo treatment as outpatient for Typhoid. After this period, he intended to come and join duty for which he reserved a railway ticket dated 11.06.2000, from Tirunelveli to New Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. This was the prevailing situation at that time. On 09.06.2000, he was falsely implicated in a murder case in Crime NO.153 of 2000 on an alleged offence under Section 304 of IPC and therefore the petitioner surrendered before the Srivaigundam Magistrate on 12.06.2000. Then he was remanded to Judicial Custody from 12.06.2000 to 24.08.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on conditional bail on 24.08.2000, on the condition that he has to sign at Guindy Police Station, Chennai from 26.08.2000 to 110. 2000. 3. The petitioner contends that the bail condition was relaxed as he had to sign at Madurai Tallakulam Police Station from 110. 2000 to 112. 2000. After that, the condition was relaxed and he attended court on 112. 2000. Thereafter, on 212. 2000, he reported for duty at New Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. In the meantime, on 25.07.2000, he was served a suspension order at Palayamkottai Prison, with effect from 12.06.2000. On request, under suspension, he was posted to Tuticorin Port Trust in the month of May 2000, when the third respondent issued a charge memo on 03.09.2001 and the following articles of charges were framed against him under rule 34 of the CISF rules. On request, under suspension, he was posted to Tuticorin Port Trust in the month of May 2000, when the third respondent issued a charge memo on 03.09.2001 and the following articles of charges were framed against him under rule 34 of the CISF rules. Article of Charge-I That No.884493002 Constable S. Annadurai of CISF Unit TPT, Tuticorin while posted at FCI/NJP(WB) had overstayed 212 days with effect from 23.05.2000 to 20.12.2000 without any permission or authority. Hence the Charge. Article of Charge-II That No.884493002 Constable S. Annadurai of CISF Unit TPT, Tuticorin while posted at CISF unit FCI/NJP(WB) on joining his duty on 212. 2000 had failed to produce relevant medical documents in support of his treatment as directed by the Assistant Commandant vide his letter No.E-24098/ DOC/FCI/NJP/2000/1558 dated 25.05.2000. Hence the Charge. 4. On the said charges, the defendant has submitted Written statements on 14.09.2001, denying the articles of charges framed against him under rule 34 of CISF rules. But, the third respondent has ordered enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report holding that the articles of charges I & II were proved beyond any doubt. Based on the enquiry report, the third respondent has passed the final order awarding the punishment of dismissal from service on 17.01.2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 22.02.2002, enclosing all the original Medical Certificates along with the appeal grounds. The second respondent has also rejected the appeal on 24.04.2002 stating that the petitioner has not placed any extenuating circumstances that warrant any interference in the order passed by the third respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Respondent, the petitioner filed this above Writ petition to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent dated 24.04.2002 and quash the same. .6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents denied the allegations of the petitioner. The respondent contended that the petitioners conditional bail to sign at Guindy Police Station, Chennai was modified and the petitioner was directed to stay at Madurai and report before the Madurai Tallakulam Police station daily once at 10.00hrs., until further order vide order dated 110. 2000. In the above order, there was no specific period from 110. 2000 to 112. 2000 mentioned and thereafter as per order dated 012. 2000. In the above order, there was no specific period from 110. 2000 to 112. 2000 mentioned and thereafter as per order dated 012. 2000, the Honorable Court relaxed the directions of the order dated 110. 2000 and petitioner was not required to sign or report to any police station after 012. 2000. The petitioner reported at unit only on 212. 2000, though the Honorable Court totally relaxed the conditional bail with effect from 012. 2000. Further, as requested by the petitioner, to make convenient for him to attend the Court at Tirunelveli and to respond the summons received in connection with criminal case, he was posted to CISF Unit, Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin. The Headquarters of the petitioner during suspension was changed to CISF Unit, TPT, Tuticorin vide Commandant, CISF Unit, FSTPP, Farakka Order No.V15014/FSTPP (FCI) CISF/2001/3086 dated 13.06.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from CISF Unit, FCI/NCP with effect from 15.06.2001 (AN) vide movement Order No. E38020/CISF/Mo(out)/FCI (NJP)/2001/1595 dated 15.06.2001. 7. The respondent further contends that as per charge of Article I, for overstayal leave for 212 days from 23.05.2000 to 20.12.2000 and as per charge of Article II, for his failure to produce relevant medical documents in support of his treatment as directed to him vide his earlier units letter dated 25.05.2000, on joining the duty on 212. 2000, he was awarded punishment after duly constituted departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry giving ample opportunities to the charged official to defend the case. The enquiry officer found that as per statement of PW1, PW2 and PE3 and PE4, the charged official failed to report for duty even after the lapse of medical unfitness period due to his alleged involvement in a murder case. Even though he was acquitted in the murder case, the departmental proceedings as per statement of PW1 and PW2, clearly established that the charged official miserably failed to produce the documents which are required in support of his treatment for proving his innocence, despite giving ample opportunity till passing final order in the proceedings, and accordingly the petitioner was awarded with the penalty of dismissal from service. The respondent found that the charges against the petitioner for 212 days of overstayal of leave without permission from the competent authority, was held to be proved by the enquiry officer. The respondent found that the charges against the petitioner for 212 days of overstayal of leave without permission from the competent authority, was held to be proved by the enquiry officer. Similarly, the second charge with regard to the failure of the petitioner to produce the medical documents in support of his medical treatment for overstaying leave was also accepted by the respondent. .8. The respondent further contends that the offence of 212 days overstay of leave without any permission from the respondent by the petitioner is very serious in nature. In the instant case, the petitioner was sanctioned 15 days earned leave from 08.05.2000 to 22.05.2000. On completion of leave, he was supposed to report back to the unit for duty on 23.05.2000. But he failed to do so and sent a telegram to the unit requesting for extension of leave alleging that he was suffering from Typhoid fever. Subsequently, the medical certificate, advising him for medical leave from 20.05.2000 to 14.06.2000, was sent to the unit. After consideration of medical certificate, the Assistant Commandant, directed the petitioner to report for duty immediately after recovery of illness along with a medical fit/unfit certificate, necessary prescription, copy of the bill for purchase of medicines, blood test report and other relevant documents in support of his treatment. The petitioner failed to produce the same. Further, the respondent contended that the petitioner had failed to put forth any cogent reasons or reliable documents to prove his innocence. 9. Considering the contentions of both the sides and the arguments of the counsels for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not established his case. 10. The petitioner has not given any explanation as to why he did not produce the medical certificate to the authorities from the time he was asked to do so i.e., 25.05.2000 to the time he was remanded to judicial custody on 12.06.2000. Also the petitioner was granted bail on 24.08.2000 and was asked to report at Guindy Police Station everyday. No explanation is tendered by the petitioner as to why he did not give the relevant documents to the concerned authorities between this date ie., 24.08.2000 and the date on which he reported to Tallakulam Police Station on 110. 2000 nor has he offered any explanation as to why he did not give the medical documents between the period from 110. 2000 nor has he offered any explanation as to why he did not give the medical documents between the period from 110. 2000 to 112. 2000, when he was at Tallakulam, Madurai. It was only on 212. 2000 that he had reported to New Jalpaiguri, West Bengal and again there is no explanation given by the petitioner as to why he did not send the documents and other certificates during this period ie., from 112. 2000 to 212. 2000. Further, though the railway reservation ticket has been produced in his affidavit, the petitioner has failed to ensure with clarity that the ticket was purchased for him. 11. Considering all the above facts, this Court feels that the punishment given to the petitioner is not disproportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by him. The respondents have acted in a fair manner and given the petitioner adequate opportunities to prove his innocence but the petitioner has failed to do so. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in the said case and hence the above Writ Petition in W.P.No.5603 of 2004 is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.