1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking to quash: (i) Order No. P.VIII-10/99-22-EC.II dated 22.10.2000 issued by respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 22.10.2000 in terms of Section 11(1) of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter, for short, CRPF Act) read with Rule 27(a) of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter, for short, CRPF Rules); (ii) Order No. R.XIII-9/2000-DA-II (RANGE) dated 29.01.2001 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal came to be rejected; and (iii) Order No. R.XIII.22/2001-ADM.III dated 04.06.2001 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner too came to be rejected. The petitioner has challenged these orders on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter, for short, CRPF) on 22.04.1985. In pursuance to circulation dated 30. 09.1991, he was deputed to intelligence Bureau as a Security Assistant for a period of three years. It is averred that after five years of his deputation he was repatriated to his parent Unit of CRPF. Aggrieved of his repatriation, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, but his application came to be dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi and the same also came to be dismissed. It is averred that in the meanwhile he received a letter of the Commandant of his Unit for joining the duty and in reply thereto, he informed the Commandant that as the matter is subjudice before the High Court of Delhi, therefore he would join after the outcome of his case. It is further averred that after the dismissal of his writ petition, the petitioner reported for duty on 27.11.1999, but he came to be suspended. Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were held against him and vide impugned order dated 22.10.2000 he came to be dismissed from service. The appeal as also the revision filed by him against the said order of his dismissal also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved of the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders. 3. Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were held against him and vide impugned order dated 22.10.2000 he came to be dismissed from service. The appeal as also the revision filed by him against the said order of his dismissal also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved of the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders. 3. It is contended that the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service in terms of Section 11(1) of CRPF Act read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules as the same prescribes minor punishment, whereas dismissal from service is a harsh punishment. Further, it is contended that one K. D. Sharma, who was also similarly situated, has been treated differently by the respondents while awarding him minor punishment, whereas he has been awarded major punishment of dismissal from service. 4. Respondents have filed the objections/counter affidavit admitting the facts as regards appointment of petitioner in the CRPF and his deputation to Intelligence Bureau. However, it is contended that on being due to repatriate with effect from 30.04.1998, the petitioner was posted to 22ndBn of CRPF vide Director General Letter dated 23.04.1998 and, accordingly, he was relieved from deputation with effect from 31.05.1998 With a direction to report to his parent Unit after availing usual joining time vide DG CRPF Signal dated 22.5.1998. It is further contended that the petitioner was due to report in the Unit on 10.06.1998 but he failed to do so and reported for duty only on 22.11.1999 thereby remaining on unauthorized absence for 534 days, as a result of which memorandum of charges were framed against him on 10.12.1999. It is contended that though the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges leveled against him but, keeping in view the principles of natural justice and to give sufficient opportunity to him to explain his unauthorized absence, the respondents/competent authority appointed one Sh. B.V. Toppo D/C as an Inquiry Officer to carry out the departmental proceedings under rules. It is further contended that the Inquiry Officer had given ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, but he failed to bring any facts to justify his absence from duty, even he had admitted that he could not report to his Battalion because he was pursuing his case to before the competent court of law. It is further contended that the Inquiry Officer had given ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, but he failed to bring any facts to justify his absence from duty, even he had admitted that he could not report to his Battalion because he was pursuing his case to before the competent court of law. Thus, it is contended that the disciplinary authority after going through the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner during the course of inquiry and on the basis of inquiry passed the dismissal order against the petitioner; the appeal as also the revision filed by him against the order of his dismissal before the appellate/higher authorities too met with the same fate. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The precise case as projected by the petitioner is that the order of his dismissal passed by the respondents under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules prescribes only minor punishment, whereas dismissal from service is a harsh punishment. Learned counsel thus argued that the said provision does not talk about dismissal from service, therefore no such penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner. As such the order of dismissal is without jurisdiction and against the rules. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of Gouhati High Court in case, titled as, Deepchand versus Union of India decided on 15.03.2001, wherein it has been observed that major punishment, i.e., dismissal from service cannot be issued under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules. 7. Learned counsel for respondents argued that the departmental inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer strictly in terms of section 11(1) CRPF Act read With Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules and the petitioner never raised this objection during the entire proceedings. He participated in the inquiry proceedings and on the basis of inquiry, the evidence adduced as well as documents produced, the competent authority passed the orders, impugned herein. 8. After going through the writ petition, objections/counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the record of departmental inquiry, what emerges is that the petitioner remained on unauthorized absence for a period of 534 days. During this period he never bothered to join the battalion. 8. After going through the writ petition, objections/counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the record of departmental inquiry, what emerges is that the petitioner remained on unauthorized absence for a period of 534 days. During this period he never bothered to join the battalion. It is also apparent that he did not allege or raise any objection against the constitution of inquiry as well as the Presiding Officer or the Member (s), of inquiry conducting the disciplinary proceedings nor it is his case that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend the charges. A perusal of the record reveals that during the process of inquiry the petitioner in his statement had admitted that he remained absent from duty without permission for 534 days, as he was pursuing his case firstly before the Central Administrative Tribunal and, thereafter, before the High Court of Delhi for his permanent absorption in the Intelligence Bureau, therefore he could not report for duty. The statement further reveals that he tendered apology and requested to take a lenient action for his absence. The record further reveals that the respondents has been issuing letters and reminders to the petitioner asking him to resume his duty but, he instead of resuming his duty, replied that he was awaiting the outcome of petition filed by him before the High Court of Delhi. 9. One of the grounds taken in the writ petition is that he has been treated differently, as in respect of one K.D. Sharma of 96 Bn., who was similarly situated and also remained absent from duty, no disciplinary action was taken against him, rather his absence was regularized. 10. A perusal of the counter filed by the respondents reveals that said K.D. Sharma had absented himself on medical grounds, therefore, after inquiry his period of absence was regularized. Moreover, the petitioner has conceded that he had absented himself from duty as he was pursuing his case in Delhi High Court and was awaiting the outcome of said case. The petitioner's case therefore cannot be construed to be construed to be similarly situated with that of said K. D. Sharma. 11. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad (2005) 13 SCC 709 has observed that members of uniformed services cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of duties enjoined upon them. The petitioner's case therefore cannot be construed to be construed to be similarly situated with that of said K. D. Sharma. 11. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad (2005) 13 SCC 709 has observed that members of uniformed services cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of duties enjoined upon them. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect discipline of the forces. It would be advantageous to reproduce appropriate portion of judgment hereunder. "Members of the uniformed forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined on these forces. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. In such forces desertion is a serious matter. Cases of this nature, in whatever manner described, are cases of desertion particularly when there is apprehension of the member of the force being called upon to perform onerous duties in difficult terrains or an order of deputation which he finds inconvenient, is passed. We cannot take such matters lightly particularly when it relates to uniformed forces of this country. A member of a uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few days must be able to give a satisfactory explanation. However, a member of the force who goes on leave and never reports for duties thereafter, cannot be said to be one merely overstaying his leave. He must be treated as a deserter." 12. In S.C. Saxena v. Union of India (2006) 9 SCC 583 , the Apex Court has approved the imposition of major punishment of compulsory retirement for the misconduct of long unauthorized absence. 13. Undisputed facts of this case are that petitioner remained on unauthorized absence for 534 days on the plea of having pursuing his case before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as High Court Delhi, and reported to the Unit only after dismissal of his case. Thus, what transpires from the above is that petitioner deliberately remained on unauthorized absence on frivolous plea. Such a conduct on his part is itself a serious lapse or misconduct which cannot be believed from a member of the disciplined force, who is always expected to observe and maintain highest discipline 14. Thus, what transpires from the above is that petitioner deliberately remained on unauthorized absence on frivolous plea. Such a conduct on his part is itself a serious lapse or misconduct which cannot be believed from a member of the disciplined force, who is always expected to observe and maintain highest discipline 14. It is settled law that if the charged employee fails to explain the reasons of his unauthorized absence by way of submitting proper documents and the inquiry officer in absence of documents came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against delinquent officer are proved, same cannot normally be interfered with either by disciplinary authority or by appellate authority, in the matter of departmental proceedings, judicial review is permissible to consider whether there is any error in the decision making process or there is denial of adequate opportunity of defence or there is violation of any substantive provision of law, but the Court cannot reassess or reappraise the evidence to substitute its decision to that of the disciplinary authority. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. 15. In the instant case, admittedly petitioner belonged to a disciplined force and he was supposed to maintain the discipline of the Battalion. If he, for any reason, was not in a position to attend the office, he could have informed the authority well in time with reasons of his absence. Even if it was not possible, he could have produced necessary documents in support of his case. But, one cannot assimilate the reasons put forth by petitioner that he remained absent for 534 days only to pursue his case, that too for his permanent absorption in the Intelligence Bureau. 16. When the Legislature has enacted a particular Statute providing administrative authority to deal with the disciplinary proceedings of its employees and ultimately such administrative authority acts as per the rules and regulation, the scope of judicial review would remain very limited It is settled law that the Court cannot rewrite the procedure for maintaining discipline while exercising its power of judicial review. The Court can only interfere when the petitioner can establish on the basis of record that the authority did not provide him the opportunity which he is entitled to according to law covering the field and also the disciplinary authority proceeded beyond its limit and acted beyond the prescription of law. 17. In the instant case there is no such allegation made by the petitioner, rather he has pleaded guilty by admitting his unauthorized absence of 534 days from duty. The petitioner has also questioned the order of his dismissal from service in terms of Section 11(1) of CRPF Act read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules on the ground that the respondents have passed the said order without jurisdiction. 18. The Apex Court has settled this issue in case, titled as, Union of India v. Gulam Mohd. Bhat, AIR 2005 SC 4289 , wherein the Supreme Court has discussed in detail about all the relevant sections as argued by the learned counsel for petitioner herein, paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 whereof are reproduced hereunder: "5. A bare perusal of Section 11 shows that it deals with minor punishment as compared to the major punishments prescribed in the preceding section. It lays down that the Commandant or any other authority or officer, as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under the Act, award any one or more of the punishments to any member of the force who is found guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of his duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a manner of the force. According to the High Court the only punishments which can be awarded under this Section are reduction in rank, fine, confinement to quarters and removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force. In our opinion, the interpretation is not correct, because the section says that these punishments may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal. 6. In our opinion, the interpretation is not correct, because the section says that these punishments may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal. 6. The use of 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 force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) may also be awarded. 7. It. may be noted th3t 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 clause (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." 19. In view of settled law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred cases, the raised in the writ petition on hand has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, the judgment cited by learned counsel for petitioner of High Court of Gouhati (supra) has no relevance vis-a-vis the subject matter of writ petition on hand. 20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is found to be without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 21. Registry is directed to return the record to the learned counsel for respondents against proper receipt.