Judgment :- The petitioner was a member of the Central Reserve Police Force attached to the 12th Battalion. He filed the present writ petition, challenging the order of the second respondent – Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Hyderabad dated 30.11.2002 confirming the order of the first respondent – Commandant, 12th Battalion, CRPF, Assam dated 04.03.2000 and for a consequential direction to reinstate him as a Constable. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 111. 2004. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent dated 14.07.2006 justifying the dismissal. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had applied for 60 days Earned Leave from 05.02.99 to 05.099. After the expiry of the leave, the petitioner did not report for duty despite communications from the respondents. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer by a communication dated 110. 1999. The Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to appear before him on 211. 1999. Since the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, departmental enquiry was held in his absence. After the enquiry, the report of the Enquiry Officer was sent to the petitioner to his home address on 06.02.2000 by a registered post. The petitioner on receipt of the same sent a Medical Certificate stating that he was suffering from some ailment. In response to that, a reply was sent by the department to his home address by RPAD on 14.02.2000 explaining the petitioner about the details of the Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner did not send any reply. It was stated that the Medical Certificate sent by the petitioner at that stage has no relevance on the enquiry which has already been concluded. The petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 04.03.2000. The period of absence was also treated as dies non. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The Appellate Authority by his order dated 30.11.2002 dismissed the appeal. Against which the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Two contentions were raised by the petitioner. The first was that the petitioners Medical Certificate was not considered by the authorities and therefore, there was non application of mind. The second contention was that under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1945, only minor penalty can be imposed and it does not cover major penalty. 4. 3. Two contentions were raised by the petitioner. The first was that the petitioners Medical Certificate was not considered by the authorities and therefore, there was non application of mind. The second contention was that under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1945, only minor penalty can be imposed and it does not cover major penalty. 4. With reference to non consideration of the Medical Certificate, it must be noted that the petitioner was given a charge memo and an enquiry was also conducted. He did not participate in the enquiry. Even after the enquiry report was sent to him, instead of replying to the said findings, the petitioner had involved in protracted correspondence of submitting leave letters which are not accepted by the authorities as it does not relate to the period of absence. Despite sufficient opportunity given to him, the petitioner had failed to avail the said opportunity. This being the case of unauthorised absence, the Court cannot interfere with the order of removal. 5. With reference to the contention regarding Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, Section 11 (1) merely gives power to the authorities to impose punishment which includes a removal from the office also. The words minor punishment mentioned therein is in contra distinction to Sections 9 and 10 of the same Act. Under Section 9, punishment can be made for heinous offence and under Section 10 for less heinous offence. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner by placing reliance upon Section 11(1) has no substance. 6. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Union of India and others v. Datta linga Toshatwad reported in (2005) 13 SCC 709 has held that in case of dismissal of unauthorised absence, the said punishment given to the member of the Armed Force cannot be said to be disproportionate and the High Court cannot interfere with such penalty on its own. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.