JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon J. Imposition of punishment of 'removal from service' inflicted upon the appellant, who was a member of the disciplined force like CRPF, is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Appeal. 2. Case of the appellant is that, he was a serving constable of CRPF and while on duty on 16.09.2009 he had to leave the camp without getting permission from the authorities concerned because of some contingencies. Later, the appellant was proceeded against by way of disciplinary proceedings, placing him under suspension as per Ext. P4; followed by Ext.P5 charge sheet. The appellant participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted Ext. P7 enquiry report, finding him guilty. After analysing the materials on record, the disciplinary authority found the appellant guilty and the punishment of 'removal from the service' was imposed on the appellant as per Ext. P8, which was subjected to challenge before the appellate authority. Since the appeal preferred did not turn to be fruitful, the matter was agitated by filing revision, which also did not yield any positive result. This made the appellant to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional authorities (Exts. P8, P9 and P10 respectively). 3. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge of this Court found that there was no case with regard to the violation of principle of natural justice and that the findings rendered by the concerned authorities (disciplinary, appellate and revisional authority) did not warrant interference. The appellant is stated as aggrieved of the said verdict and hence this Writ Appeal; raising many a ground, particularly, with regard to the infringement of the Rule position in conducting the Enquiry and finalization of the proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the proceeding finalized by the disciplinary authority is not in conformity with the statutory requirement and no punishment could have been imposed by way of removal from service. Reference is also made to Rule 27 (c) (4) of the Central Reserve Police Rules 1955, prescribing the modalities of the enquiry to be conducted, when the charge is denied. The learned counsel also refers to Ext. P11, whereby the trial Court has already acquitted the appellant in respect of the criminal case, which in fact formed the basis for one of the charges levelled against the appellant. The learned counsel also refers to Ext. P11, whereby the trial Court has already acquitted the appellant in respect of the criminal case, which in fact formed the basis for one of the charges levelled against the appellant. 5. The proceedings are however sought to be sustained by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents, stating that, they have been finalized in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and also in compliance with the 'principles of natural justice'. 6. Coming to the factual position, the appellant was served Ext. P5 charge sheet incorporating three separate charges which are given below: Annexure - I Statement of Articles of charges framed against No. 911272845 Ct. J. Santhosh Kumar of RTC - 3, CRPF, Pallipuram, Trivandrum. Article I That the said No. 911272845 Ct. J. Santhosh Kumar while functioning as Mess Constable of SO's Mess, RTC - 3 during the month of September 99 committed disobedience of orders of his capacity as a member of the Force under section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act 1949, in that he left the lines/camp on the intervening night of 16/17 Sept. 99 at his own without any permission/orders from the competent authority. Article II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said No. 911272845 Ct. Santhosh Kumar was guilty of misconduct in his capacity s a member of the Force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he after leaving the campus without permission on the intervening night of 16/17 Sept' 99 as above under Article - I; got himself involved in a criminal case at Thampanoor Bus stand and was arrested by civil police and remanded in Judicial custody. Thus the conduct of the said Ct. grossly unbecoming of a good member of the disciplined Force. Article III That the said No. 911272845 Ct. J. Santhosh Kumar is habitual offender of misconduct/dereliction of duties and has already been awarded with punishment twice withing his short service at about 8 years and continue to repeat committance of offence instead of improving himself which grossly unbecoming of a good member of the disciplined Force and he is not likely to continue as an efficient member of the Force under section 11 (1) of CRPF Act 1949. With regard to charges under Article I and III, there is no dispute as to the factual position as to the leaving without permission and as to the prior instances awarding punishments twice. The charges under I and III are rather admitted, pleading guilty, however adding some 'explanation', which is stated as not considered by the concerned authorities (such as disciplinary, appellate, revisional) and also by the learned Judge of this Court, which otherwise would not have led to the inference.. 7. The case projected by the appellant, with reference to Rule 27 (c) (4) is with regard to the procedure to be pursued in a case, where the charge levelled against the delinquent employee is not admitted. The said rule reads as follows: 27 (c) (4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. It the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads "Not guilty", he shall be required to file a written statement, and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than fortnight, as the officer conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed. The Rule itself shows that when the charge is admitted, the matter can be closed. This being the position, even ignoring the charges in respect of Article II, it is admitted that charges under Articles I and III stand proved by virtue of fact that the appellant has pleaded guilty. 8. The next question is with regard to the 'explanation' offered from the part of the appellant. The case of the appellant is that on 16.09.2009, he received a call from his brother at about 7.30 P.M. stating that the mother of the appellant was hospitalized due to 'heart attack' and that he had to leave the premises. It is stated that no authorised officer was available in the camp at that time and as such the appellant had to leave the premises without getting any permission. It is stated that no authorised officer was available in the camp at that time and as such the appellant had to leave the premises without getting any permission. On his way to home, he happened to be booked by the police in the bus stand, allegedly because of some mistaken identity of the culprit in connection with snatching of Rs. 300/- from a passenger. It is stated that, the appellant was taken into custody and on conclusion of the trial, the trial court acquitted him as per Ext. P11 verdict. Even going by the same, it is relevant to note that the rule position [as contemplated under 27 (c) (4)] gets attracted only in respect of the charge under Article II and not under Articles I and III. Further there was no case before the learned Single Judge referring to infringement of any Rule position. It is fundamental rule of evidence that the admitted fact does not required to be proved, more so, by virtue of Section 58 of the Evidence Act. That apart, the degree of proof required for imposing the punishment in a criminal case and in disciplinary proceeding do differ substantially. In the former case, it shall be beyond any reasonable doubt, while in the latter case, preponderance of probability is sufficient and there is no 'allergy' even to hear-say evidence, as made clear by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and another v. Rattam Singh ( 1982 (1) LLJ 46 ) and Shri. J.D. Jain v. The Management of State Bank of Indian and another ( 1982 (1) LLJ 54 ). 9. Coming to the proportionality of the punishment, it is to be noted that, since the appellant was admittedly a member of the disciplined force, it was quite unbecoming of a person like the appellant to have left the camp without obtaining prior permission from the departmental authorities. Nothing prevented the appellant from placing a letter/request in writing to be submitted to the concerned authority, with regard to the exigency involved, so as to have left the premises in connection with the alleged illness of his mother. So also, there is no case for the appellant that he had made appropriate arrangements with any of the colleagues to have the position informed to the higher - ups and no such material has been produced before this Court. 10. So also, there is no case for the appellant that he had made appropriate arrangements with any of the colleagues to have the position informed to the higher - ups and no such material has been produced before this Court. 10. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with reference to the circumstances contemplated under Section 9 (f) of the CRPF Act, as to the 'desertion of the force', so as to attract the punishment. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, with reference to the materials of record, brought it to the notice of this Court that the proceedings have been finalized, with reference to the rule position, as mentioned hereinbefore, particularly, for imposition of a lesser punishment, though the misconduct committed by the delinquent was grave enough to justify dismissal from service. It is also relevant to note that Chapter VI, Rule 27 (1) (a) clearly provides for punishment of dismissal or removal from the force. It is also a settled position, by virtue of law laid down by the Apex Court, that if any one of the charges levelled against the delinquent employee stands proved, it is sufficient to impose the punishment, even if some other charges have not been proved against the delinquent. The charge levelled against the delinquent under Article I is sufficient enough to have imposed the punishment of removal from service, more so in view of the antecedents of the delinquent employee as covered by the charge under Article No. III. The punishment is never disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charge and the appellant is virtually not prevented from obtaining the service benefits. In the above circumstances, we find that there is absolutely no illegality, irregularity or infirmity in imposition of the punishment by way of removal from service. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.