JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar; CJ.:- 1. This appeal is filed against the order made in SWP No. 442/2009 dated 24.05.2010, wherein the appellant challenged the order of dismissal dated 09.01.2009 with the direction to the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with all benefits. 2. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he was appointed as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1998. He worked in different parts of the Country and on 19.12.2007, he visited his house and returned to duty on 29.12.2007. The respondents punished the appellant by awarding seven days quarter guard punishment and thereafter he underwent HC course at Shika Sahib G. Company and on 09.01.2009, respondent No. 4 directed the appellant to leave the unit. On asking of the appellant as to why he has to leave the unit, the respondent No. 4, at that time, informed the appellant that he has been dismissed from service. On request of the appellant for providing copy of the dismissal order, the respondent No. 4 informed the appellant that same will be issued in due course of time. The appellant brought the matter before the 3rd respondent and requested him to allow the appellant to resume duties by submitting a representation. No action was taken by 3rd respondent and thereafter, the appellant obtained a copy of the dismissal order dated 09.01.2009 from the 4th respondent and challenged the said order in the writ petition (SWP) No. 442/2009. 3. It is the contention of the appellant that before imposing the order of punishment, show cause notice dated 31.03.2008 was issued for which appellant submitted an apology on 15.04.2008, wherein the appellant submitted that on 19.12.2007, an incident of fire had taken place in Army Depot Khundroo and his house being in the vicinity of the depot, received a phone call from his home informing him that the Army had ordered the inhabitants to leave the area. After receiving the said phone call the appellant having felt danger to the life of his family members informed and requested his Company Commander for two days leave. As the leave was not granted, the appellant left the unit after depositing his weapon. The appellant also tendered his apology and prayed that he may be pardoned and in future he will not repeat the mistake. 4. As the leave was not granted, the appellant left the unit after depositing his weapon. The appellant also tendered his apology and prayed that he may be pardoned and in future he will not repeat the mistake. 4. After receiving the reply from the appellant, departmental inquiry was ordered and the dismissal order was passed. It is stated that during preliminary investigation, the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges, however, the Inquiry Officer went on to record the statement of the witnesses and submitted his report. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 dismissed the appellant from service and declared the period of absence from 20.12.2007 to 29.12.2007 as Dies-non and confiscated all the Medals won by the appellant. The order of dismissal was passed by the 4th respondent in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 11(1) C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 C.R.P.F. Rules. 5. It is the contention of the appellant that Section 11(1) CRPF Act read with Rule 27 CRPF Rules, contemplates minor punishment and the major punishment of dismissal ought not to have been issued, which is in violation of the said Act and the Rules. It is further contended that the alleged ground on which appellant was dismissed was his absence from duty for few days and for such an absence extreme penalty of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the allegations. 6. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents by contending that the appellant having been employed in a disciplined force, he behaved in an improper manner, namely, leaving from duty un-authorizedly by returning the weapon is not proper and he having pleaded guilty to the charge, the punishment imposed is justified. 7. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by accepting the contentions raised by the respondents. The appellant, who appeared as a party in person in this appeal, argued the appeal and submitted that he has served for more than 11 years and for an un-authorized absence of ten days dismissing the appellant from service is not commensurate with the gravity of the charge levelled particularly the absence is not willful. The appellant submitted that he having received message regarding the fire incident in his native village and the villagers having been asked to vacate from the village on apprehending danger to his family members rushed to his village. The appellant submitted that he having received message regarding the fire incident in his native village and the villagers having been asked to vacate from the village on apprehending danger to his family members rushed to his village. He also submitted that before leaving the place of duty he has asked for leave/ permission which was rejected and he was compelled to surrender the weapon and left to his village and, therefore, the unauthorized absence is not willful and is for valid reasons. The appellant ultimately submitted that the order of dismissal may be modified as compulsory retirement so that he could get the pensionary benefits of his past 11 years’ service. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that appellant having unauthorizedly absented for ten days and leaving the place of duty at his free will by leaving the weapon, he was severely dealt with by the department as he having served in the disciplinary force and if such kind of punishments are not imposed the CRPF would not be in a position to maintain discipline. He has also cited decisions in support of his contention and contended that it is for the Disciplinary Authority to impose the punishment and unless there are procedural violations or punishment imposed is disproportionate, the punishment imposed cannot be interfered with. In support of his contention he relied on judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 736 , AIR 1999 SC 625 and AIR 2003 SC 1724 . 9. We have considered the rival submissions. 10. The point arise for consideration, as prayed for by appellant in this appeal, is as to whether punishment of dismissal imposed against the appellant is proportionate to the gravity of the charges of un-authorized absence of 10 days and to what relief the appellant is entitled to? 11. The case of the appellant is that after getting information about the fire incident in his native village with a request to villagers to vacate the village to avoid danger, he asked for leave and same having not been granted, he was forced to leave the place of duty by surrendering the weapon. The factum of fire incident due to which he got message and went to his native village is not disputed. The only allegation is that without the sanction of leave, he unauthorizedly left from duty. The factum of fire incident due to which he got message and went to his native village is not disputed. The only allegation is that without the sanction of leave, he unauthorizedly left from duty. It is settled principle of law as of now that unless the un-authorized absence is proved as willful, extreme penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed. It is true that the appellant was employed in CRPF which is a disciplined force and all the members of the Force are having responsibility during their duty hours. The dismissal order passed against the appellant not only debar him from going to any other employment but also denies the benefits which he could be otherwise entitled to get on completion of 11 years of service, if he voluntarily retires or he is placed under compulsory retirement. 12. The proportionality in punishment, whether commensurate with the gravity of the charge/charges, is one of the ground on which the court can interfere if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate in a given case. In the decision reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611 (Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and ors), Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 25 and 27 held thus:- “25. ...........But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court- Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of B logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1984] 3 Weekly Law Reports 1174 (HL) Lord Deplock said: “... Judicial Review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground l would call ‘illegality’, the second irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. Judicial Review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground l would call ‘illegality’, the second irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of ‘proportionality’ which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community;..... 27. In the present case the punishment is so strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review.” In the decision reported in (2009) 15 SCC 620 , (Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and anr v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and ors), Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 19, 20 and 21 held thus:- “19. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well recognized concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in access to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. 20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be : would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. 21. 20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be : would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. 21. In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company’s Rules and Regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified, since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances. The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations.” In the decision reported in (2011) 13 SCC 553 (Union of India and ors v. Bodupalli Gopalaswami), in paragraph 28, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held thus:- “........................................Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the decision making process. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court Martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court- Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court- Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review....................................................................” In (2013) 6 SCC 602 (S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India and another), Hon’ble the Supreme Court interfered with the quantum of punishment holding that the misconduct proved against the officer seems to be of an administrative nature rather than a misconduct of a serious nature. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228 (Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat) considered the similar aspect, namely, unauthorized absence of 315 days and upheld the order of compulsory retirement imposed and set-aside the order of reinstatement issued by the High Court. Thus, it is evident that the very same CRPF chose to impose compulsory retirement though that absence was 315 days. Following the said judgment, we are of the view that the plea made by the appellant seeking to modify the punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement needs consideration. 14. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the punishment imposed against the appellant, namely, dismissal from service for un-authorized absence of 10 days is not proportionate with the gravity of the charge levelled against the appellant and to meet the ends of justice, we modify the said dismissal order to compulsory retirement. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay all the benefits arising out of the modification order of dismissal to compulsory retirement, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.