ORDER Adarsh Kumar Goel, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 9441/03, dismissing the writ application. The case of the appellant as pleaded in the writ petition is that he was appointed as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 1991. While he was posted at Nagaon (Fulguri), he was granted medical leave for 45 days w.e.f. 01.06.2009 to 15.07.1999. On 25.06.1999, he had left for Dalgaon from the residence of one of his relatives to meet one of his Constable friends. When he was at a distance of about 10 yards from the CRPF Camp/Coy post, someone shot at him and as a result thereof he had sustained bullet injuries. The incident had occurred at around 7:30 pm and he was shifted to Dalgaon Civil hospital by the CRPF personnel. Later on, he learnt that one person was shot dead in the said shoot out and he was identified to be a dacoit. Though he was in no way involved in any offence, he was also arrested in the case arising out of the said incident, registered as Dalgaon Police Station Case No. 149/99 under Sections 302/34 IPC. His condition having not improved, he was, at first shifted to Mangaldoi Civil Hospital and later on, to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, where he remained under treatment from 28.06.1999 to 30.09.1999. During such period of treatment, the Commandant of the unit of the petitioner as well as O.C., C/123 CRPF had also come to enquire about his well being and he had told them about the incident as well as false case framed against him. The wife of the appellant was also informed by telegram by the O.C., C/123 CRPF informing his hospitalization and offering help and assistance, if needed. He was released on bail in the meantime on 30.9.99 and he joined his duty on 1.12.99. 2. On 09.02.2000, the appellant was suspended on the ground that a case was pending against him in respect of a criminal offence and in connection with the said case, he was detained in custody on 25.06.1999 for a period exceeding 48 hours. By the said order, his Head Quarter was fixed at 123 BN CRPF, Jagiroad, which was, however, subsequently changed to Panjabari, Guwahati. By the said order, his Head Quarter was fixed at 123 BN CRPF, Jagiroad, which was, however, subsequently changed to Panjabari, Guwahati. On 16.08.2001, a memorandum of charges was issued against the appellant on two articles of charges. In the departmental enquiry that followed, the appellant was imposed with penalty of removal from service by an order dated 19.03.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 16.12.2002 and by the order dated 18.07.2003, the revision petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed. 3. The aforesaid orders were the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 4. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the charges framed against the appellant, which are as follows: ARTICLE-I That said No. 913284939 CT Sayed A. Ahmad of C/123 Bn. CRPF while functioning as such in C/123 Bn. CRPF committed an act of serious misconduct in discharge of duty in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 in that he failed to report for duty on 16.7.99 after availing 45 days Medical rest w.e.f. 1.6.1999 to 15.7.1999 and remained absent w.e.f. 16.07.1999 to 29.11.99 without information or permission of the competent authority. ARTICLE-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Office the said No. 913284939/CT Sayed A. Ahmad was guilty of committing serious misconduct in discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 in that he failed to inform to the competent authority regarding his arrest on criminal charge and detention in police' custody w.e.f. 25.06.1999 to 29.09.1999 in connection with Dalgaon P.S. Case No. 149/99 under section 302/34 of IPC and suppressed the fact of his detention in police custody to the competent authority. 5. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that departmental enquiry was ordered under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, for short, the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, for short, the Rules of 1955. 5. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that departmental enquiry was ordered under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, for short, the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, for short, the Rules of 1955. Section 11(1) deals with minor punishments and therefore, imposition of penalty by way of removal from service, which is a major penalty, is wholly impermissible in law and on this ground alone the order of removal is liable to be set aside. He further submits that there is no dispute that the appellant had sustained bullet injuries which required hospitalization and the materials on record demonstrate that the authorities were aware of his hospitalization and therefore, Article-I of the charge to the effect that he remained absent w.e.f. 16.07.1999 to 29.11.1999 without information or permission of the competent authorities cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that there was no suppression of the fact of his detention in police custody as contained in Article-II of the charge. He also submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty by way of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the charges and therefore, the same requires interference at the hands of this Court In order to buttress his argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance in the following cases: (i) Ex-Naik Sardar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1991)3 SCC 213 and (ii) Union of India & Ors, Vs. Giriraj Sharma, reported in (1994) Supp (3) SCC 755. 6. Mr. C. Baruah, learned CGC, on the other hand, submits that the charges having been proved, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, being a member of the disciplined force, appellant's unauthorized absence from duty cannot be viewed lightly. What is more, he was involved in a criminal case in which he was arrested and although there were interactions with the authorities, the appellant deliberately withheld and suppressed the fact of his being arrested by the police. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel refers to a decision in the case of Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309 . In support of his submissions, the learned counsel refers to a decision in the case of Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309 . He has further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228 has held that Section 11 of CRPF Act, read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules permit removal from service by the competent authorities. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the submissions. We have also perused the materials on record. 8. It will be appropriate to first deal with the contention raised on behalf of the appellant with regard to the scope and ambit of section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. Section 11(1) reads as follows: Minor punishments:-- (1)The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal or any one or more of the following punishments to any other member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say,-- (a) Reduced in rank; (b) Fine of any amount not exceeding one months' pay and allowances: (c) Confinement in the quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) Confinement in the quarter guard for not more than twenty-eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) Removal from any office of distinction or special emolument the Force. 9. Perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the use of the words "in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal"', appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 11 before clauses (a) to (e) shows that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of the Force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) may also be awarded. 10. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra), the Apex Court laid down as follows: 7. 10. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra), the Apex Court laid down as follows: 7. It may be noted that Section 9 of the Act mentions serious or heinous offences and also prescribes penalty which may be awarded for them. Section 10 deals with less heinous offences and clauses (m) thereof shows that absence of a member of the Force without leave or without sufficient cause or overstay without sufficient cause, is also mentioned as less heinous offence and for that also a sentence of imprisonment is provided. It is, therefore, clear that Section 11 deals with only those minor punishments which may be awarded in a departmental inquiry and a plain reading thereof makes it quite clear that a punishment of dismissal can certainly be awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10. 8. It is fairly well-settled position in law that removal is a form of dismissal. This Court in Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (Dr.) v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay explained that removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing and both bring about termination of service though every termination of service does not amount to removal or dismissal. The only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal the employee is disqualified from future employment while in the case of removal he is not debarred from getting future employment. Therefore, dismissal has more serious consequences in comparison to removal. In any event, Section 11(1) refers to the Rule made under the Act under which action can be taken. Rule 27 is part of the Rules made under the Act. Rule 27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority. In the instant case the Commandant who had passed the order of removal was the competent authority to pass the order. 11. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra), there is no merit in the submission of Mr. Mahmud that the authorities acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing penalty of removal from service which was initiated under Section 11(1) of the Act. It is also necessary to put on record that memorandum of charge dated 16.8.2001 also referred to Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. 12. Bhat (supra), there is no merit in the submission of Mr. Mahmud that the authorities acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing penalty of removal from service which was initiated under Section 11(1) of the Act. It is also necessary to put on record that memorandum of charge dated 16.8.2001 also referred to Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant, though argued that charges were not proved, he was unable to show how the finding recorded is perverse. The learned counsel, during the course of his argument, did not raise any issue with regard to procedural infirmity in the departmental proceeding. Perusal of the judgment under appeal also shows that no such plea was advanced. 13. In Mithilesh Singh (supra), the Apex Court stated as follows: We find from the factual position, which is undisputed that the appellant was posted at Taran Taran in Punjab, a terrorist-affected area and was, at the relevant time, working in the Railway Protection Special Force. Any act of indiscipline of such an employee cannot be lightly taken. In Ashok Kumar Singh case the employee was a police constable and it was held that an act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly. As noted by the Division Bench of the High Court, penalty of removal from service is statutorily prescribed. It is for the employee concerned to show how that penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstances has been placed by the appellant to show as to how the punishment could be characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. On the contrary as established in the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant left the arms and ammunition unguarded and not in any proper custody. This aggravated the aberrations. Therefore, the order of removal from service cannot be faulted. There is no reason to interfere with the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court. 14. Scope of interference with punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same as held in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 14. Scope of interference with punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same as held in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 . In Giriraj (supra), the delinquent had overstayed the leave by 12 days under admittedly compelling circumstances and it is in such circumstances, the Apex Court had held that a major penalty of dismissal of service was not called for. Similarly, in Sardar Singh (supra), having regard to the allegation, which was carrying of more than the permitted quota of wine bottles issued from the Army Canteen, the Apex Court set aside the punishment of 3 (three) months' R.I. and dismissal from service and remanded the matter to the Court-Martial to award any of the lesser punishments that could be imposed. In the contextual factual matrix, we do not consider the punishment imposed to be disproportionate. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the judgment under appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed