ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.04.2011 and the order of the appellate authority dated 07.04.2012 pertaining to termination from services and the petitioner has further prayed for direction upon respondent to reinstate him as constable in the services. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of constable in Central Reserve Police Force, Government of India and joined the services on 03.06.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner completed six months of rigorous training. The petitioner proceeded on authorized leave to his native place where he fell sick for which intimation was sent to the learned Principal, Sri Nagar (J & K). The respondents without giving an opportunity of explaining his conduct took the extreme step of removing the services under Sub rule (1) of Rule-5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 19th April, 2011. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority & Director General of C.R.P.F. and the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal vide order dated 07.04.2012. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, the petitioner left with no other alternative, for efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Per-contra a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents inter alia stating therein that the petitioner was enlisted in CRPF on 03.06.2010 and reported in RTC CRPF Srinagar on 08.09.2010 for basic training. On successful completion of 22 weeks, he was sent on Mid-term break w.e.f. 23.02.2011 to 09.03.2011. He has been instituted on 09.03.2011 but he did not report back on due date and remained absent w.e.f. 10.03.2011 without any information and permission of the competent authority. He has directed vide office letter dated 16.03.201, 22.03.2011 and 02.04.2011 to report back for training but he did not respond to any of the communications. As such, he has acted against order of discipline of the force. Hence, the competent disciplinary authority i.e. the Principle/DIGP of the institution terminated under the provision of sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules dated 19.04.2011. 5. Heard Mr. As such, he has acted against order of discipline of the force. Hence, the competent disciplinary authority i.e. the Principle/DIGP of the institution terminated under the provision of sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules dated 19.04.2011. 5. Heard Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Sinha (ASGI) and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the documents on records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has referred rejoinder filed where it has been submitted that while passing the impugned order of punishment, the principles of natural justice have not been followed and no opportunity was given to explain his conduct. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was sanctioned leave to visit native home in the District of Sahibganj .Information for sickness was sent to the learned Principal, Sri Nagar (Jammu and Kashmir) and subsequently, that fever converted into symptoms of Jaundice (Special type of fever). So, there was no intentional absence rather due to compelling situation so arisen that he could not report the authorities nor he could resume the duties and the petitioner had duly reported regarding sickness due to one post certificate dated 08.03.2011 and enclosed Annexure-2 series to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority in the guise of innocuous order has terminated the services of petitioner tainted with stigma whereby the provisions 311(2) of the Constitution of India has been violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority has totally ignored the factum of illness confirmed by the office of Civil Surgeon of State Government and passed arbitrary order by imposing major punishment of termination from services. Moreover, the relevant rule has been given a complete go by rendering impugned order of termination nugatory. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has strenuously urged that the impugned order of termination has been passed in accordance with the relevant rules since sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner to report back forthwith. The petitioner did not report back on due date and remained absence without any information and permission of competent authority thereby, the petitioner acted against order of discipline of the force. The petitioner did not report back on due date and remained absence without any information and permission of competent authority thereby, the petitioner acted against order of discipline of the force. Therefore, the competent authority has terminated the petitioner from services under the provision of sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules dated 19.04.2011 which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 07.04.2012. 8. After giving my anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective parties at length and on perusal of the relevant documents on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate the reasons for interference by this Court due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:- (i) In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly while undergoing basic training at Srinagar, after completion of training, the petitioner was sent for mid-term break w.e.f. 23.02.2011 to 09.03.2011. He was supposed to report at the institution on 09.03.2011 but reported on 19.04.2011. The petitioner was intimated on three occasions to report back for training but he did not join. The disciplinary authority by passing the order of termination from services under the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which is quoted hereinbelow:- 5. Termination of temporary service.-(1)(a) The services of a temporary Government Servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government Servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government Servant; (b) the period of such notice shall be one month: Provided that the services of any such Government Servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. (ii) In the instant case, the disciplinary authority by passing the impugned order has violated the aforesaid provisions thereby rendering nugatory is unsustainable in the eye of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satwati Deswal Vs. (ii) In the instant case, the disciplinary authority by passing the impugned order has violated the aforesaid provisions thereby rendering nugatory is unsustainable in the eye of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana And Others as reported in (2010) 1 SCC 126 has inter-alia held termination, a major penalty cannot be imposed without following the procedure laid down in relevant rules relating to departmental enquiry. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India And Another as reported in (1984) 2 SCC 369 has been pleased to observe as under:- “12. The form of the order is merely a comouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the court would not be debarred, merkmishrarely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employees.” 9. On the cumulative effect of facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and in view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of termination dated 19.04.2011 and 07.04.2012 are hereby quashed. However, it would be open to the authorities, if they so desire, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for his termination from services and if such disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the respondent shall give proper opportunity of hearing and permit the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective stands and after giving such opportunity the disciplinary authorities thereafter shall give hearing to petitioner and then pass a final order on the quantum of termination of services of petitioner in compliance with the statutory rules applicable to petitioner. 10. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order of termination by disciplinary authority being affirmed by appellate authority are set aside and order of termination passed against the petitioner are quashed. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.