JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are both members of the Railway Protection Force aggrieved by the orders of their removal from service. 2. In SBCWP No. 5196/1996, petitioner Badan Singh was appointed as Constable in CRPF and was posted in Kota. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him by the respondents on 29/6/1982 on the charge of alleged theft which took place at Kota Workshop. In connection therewith, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 5/11/1982. While he was still continuing under suspension, his wife unfortunately expired in July, 1988. Since his father and mother were already dead, there was no one to take care of his children. He had to go to his home town Bharatpur and for that purpose, he requested the Divisional Security Officer vide application dated 8/9/1988 to allow him to mark his attendance at Bharatpur with the respondent CRPF. His request however was not accepted. For this period of his absence, petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 5/1/1989. Total period for which the charge of absence was framed against the petitioner was 35 days. Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 9/2/1989. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet on 23/2/1989 denying the charges asserting that he was not even being paid the subsistence allowance. On 1/3/1989, petitioner applied for grant of leave for alleged absence and requested that he be paid subsistence during the suspension period. Enquiry officer communicated to him vide communication dated 2/3/1989 that the next date was 11/12.3.1989 in which, petitioner may appear to defend his case either personally or through next friend. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 11/3/1989 and denied the charges. He was informed that the matter would be taken on following day on 12/3/1989, on which date also, he attended the office of Company Commander and remained present there throughout from 845 to 1700 hours. Petitioner marked his attendance in diary on 12/3/1989 however enquiry was shown to have been concluded ex-parte on 12/3/1989. Enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 21/3/1989 proving all the charges on which basis, the penalty of removal was imposed. 3. Petitioner marked his attendance in diary on 12/3/1989 however enquiry was shown to have been concluded ex-parte on 12/3/1989. Enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 21/3/1989 proving all the charges on which basis, the penalty of removal was imposed. 3. In SBCWP No. 5228/1996 filed by petitioner Heera Lal, petitioner was appointed as Constable with the Railway Protection Force vide order dated 28/7/1965 and was posted in Kota in 1965. This petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 5/1/1999 in connection with the vigilance case relating to theft committed during his duty hours. Petitioner was served with the charge sheet by the Divisional Security Officer on allegation that he remained willfully absent for 52 days. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 8/2/1989 denying the charges and asserting that he was not even being paid the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Petitioner on 1/3/1989 applied for grant of leave of 52 days with a request to allow him to engage a lawyer to defend himself. This application was not decided but the enquiry officer recorded statement of petitioner on 1/3/1989 itself. He then gave a notice to the petitioner on 2/3/1989 that the enquiry proceedings will be next held on 11/12.3.1989 in which, petitioner may appear along with his next friend. On 11/3/1989, enquiry officer has recorded statement of one Ramchandra Sharma and the enquiry was fixed to be held on 12/3/1989. In this case also, petitioner has categorically asserted that he was present during 845 to 1700 hours but the enquiry officer did not turn up and yet, it was shown on record as if departmental proceedings were conducted and concluded on 12/3/1989. Enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 21/3/1989. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 12/4/1989 passed order of removal of petitioner from service. 4. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners has argued that hasty manner in which the departmental proceedings were conducted in both the matters, leave much to be desired. While request of the petitioner to provide him next friend was not decided in one of the cases, in both the cases, petitioners were not paid subsistence allowance during the long period of suspension. The departmental proceedings were concluded in a hush hush manner. While request of the petitioner to provide him next friend was not decided in one of the cases, in both the cases, petitioners were not paid subsistence allowance during the long period of suspension. The departmental proceedings were concluded in a hush hush manner. While 12/3/1989 was fixed as the date for conducting the proceedings but on that date, despite presence of the petitioners throughout the day in the office of the Company Commander and despite marking their attendance in diary, they were shown absent in the departmental proceedings. Enquiry Officer, himself did not turn up and rather on record showed the enquiry to have been conducted ex parte against both the petitioners on that very day and concluded also in which he finally found the charges of willful absence proved against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the gravity of the charge, the penalty of removal from service would hardly be justified. Such a penalty, even otherwise, has to be set-aside being disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charge. Learned counsel in support of his arguments cited the recent judgments of Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ranveer Singh, RLR 2001 (2) 160 and Iqbal Singh v. State, 1997 (1) RLR 347 and Smt. Bhagwati v. State, 2008 (6) WLC (Raj.) 507 and argued that penalty of removal for absence of few days or certain number of days would be wholly disproportionate to the gravity of charge. It is therefore argued that such penalty deserves to substitute by another penalty by this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri Tarun Choudhary, learned counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the enquiry in the present matter was held in a just and proper manner and that the charges against the petitioners, who are members of the disciplined force were quite serious. Even if they were under suspension, they had no right to remain willfully absent for number of days without due permission of the competent authority. Even if they were under suspension, they had no right to remain willfully absent for number of days without due permission of the competent authority. Learned counsel submitted that mere fact that petitioners superannuated during the pendency of the writ petition, would not make any difference because they were removed from service much there before and lapse of long period of time now would not furnish any additional reason to interfere with the quantum of punishment which even otherwise, was lawfully awarded. 6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record, I find that the departmental proceedings in both these cases were indeed held in a very lackadaisical manner. Principles of natural justice were not adhered to inasmuch as, petitioners have asserted that they were present in the office of Company commander on the appointed day of 12/3/1989 and remained present throughout from 845 to 1700 hours yet the enquiry officer, who himself did not turn up, prepared the report and concluded the enquiry ex-part on the very same day. If on the earlier date, notice of such proceedings was given to the petitioners, there was no reason enquiry was not deferred on that day so as to require the petitioners to again appear before him if actually the enquiry officer wanted to do so. There is no justification why the enquiry proceedings were concluded in such a hasty manner if the enquiry officer at all found that petitioners were not present on that day. Moreover, it cannot be a matter of sheer co-incidence that the departmental proceedings were concluded in a day when the delinquents were alleged to be not present on the day fixed for holding such departmental enquiry whereas same enquiry officer was conducting the departmental enquiry in both the cases. 7. Moreover, it cannot be a matter of sheer co-incidence that the departmental proceedings were concluded in a day when the delinquents were alleged to be not present on the day fixed for holding such departmental enquiry whereas same enquiry officer was conducting the departmental enquiry in both the cases. 7. Although it is otherwise a fit case for remand however, in view of material placed on record and submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners and in view of the fact that period of absence of the case of Badan Singh, which has been found proved, is only 35 days and in the case of Heera Lal, only 52 days, remand after such a lapse of time is not considered conducive to the interest of justice but at the same time, even accepting the charges afternoted as proved, award of penalty of removal from service can hardly to be justified. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, both the writ petitions are allowed in part. Penalty of removal from service is set-aside and is substituted by that of reduction in rank in the grade by two stages. Petitioners however shall be deemed to have throughout continued in service till the date of their superannuation. However, in order to balance the equities, they are held entitled to only for half of the back wages for the intervening period. Petitioners would also be entitled to all the retiral benefits and other consequential benefits.Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date, copy of this order is produced before the respondents.Writ petition Allowed. *******