JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondents. 2. The legality and correctness of the order of removal from service dated 16-06-2010 and its consequential orders dated 10-09-2012 and 22-05-2013 have been questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3.1 According to the respondents, the petitioner was recruited as Constable (GD) in the Central Reserved Police Force, Group Centre, Langjing, Imphal with effect from 25-08-2001 and after undergoing necessary training, the petitioner had been serving till 25-06-2010 when he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a Departmental Enquiry. To initiate the Departmental Enquiry, a Memorandum dated 30-06-2010 was issued and a copy thereof was served upon the petitioner and the charge levelled against him was that while on guard duty in a highly sensitive area, he consumed liquor and remained absent from duty at Morcha No. 2 of TC, Dimapur. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the said charge and after the Department Enquiry being concluded on 14-10-2010, the Enquiry Officer submitted his proceedings. 3.2 A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner at his home address through registered post as the petitioner deserted from GC Campus on 14-10-2010 without any permission and another copy thereof was served upon the petitioner on 23-11-2010 when he returned to the GC Campus. No representation was submitted by the petitioner and accordingly, after considering the enquiry report, on 28-12-2010, the disciplinary authority awarded the following punishment: "(a) Stoppage of annual increment for 3 (three) years with cumulative effect; (b) Confinement of 15 (fifteen) days with forfeiture of all pay and allowances with two hours daily drill and (c) Continuance of his suspension till finalisation of Second Departmental Enquiry being initiated." 3.3 In the meantime, a Court of Enquiry vide order dated 28-12-2010 was ordered to find out the circumstances under which the petitioner, while under suspension and facing a Departmental Enquiry, deserted from the Campus with effect from 14-10-2010. After the Court of Enquiry having been conducted in accordance with rules and on receipt of the proceedings of the Board, an order dated 28-12-2010 was issued by the DIGP, CG, CRPF, Imphal directing that a disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner for desertion and accordingly, a Memorandum dated 28-12-2010, enclosing therewith article of charges, list of documents and list of witnesses, was served upon the petitioner and the charge was that the petitioner committed an offence of misconduct, in that he deserted from the GC, Campus on 14-10-2010 without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority and reported back to GC, CRPF, Imphal on 23-11-2010 after desertion of 40 days which is highly prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force punishable under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. 3.4 As has been done in the 1st department enquiry, on 17-02-2011 when he appeared before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him and prayed for pardon with the assurance that he would not repeat such mistake in future. The Enquiry Officer continued the proceedings further and after the proceedings being concluded on 25-05-2011, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30-05-2011 holding the charge being proved beyond doubt. The disciplinary authority, after considering the report, vide its order dated 16-06-2011 awarded the petitioner a punishment of 'removal from service'. 3.5 Being aggrieved by both the orders dated 28-12-2010 and dated 16-06-2011 issued by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed vide its office order dated 10-09-2012. The petitioner, being further aggrieved, preferred a revision petition under Rule 29 of CRPF Rule, 1955 before the Inspector General of Police which was also rejected being devoid of any merit. 3.6 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the said impugned orders taking a new plea that while the petitioner was under suspension facing the 1st Departmental proceedings, he was physically assaulted in the barrack and therefore, he had to get himself treated at the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Lamphel followed by his being admitted at District Hospital, Bishnupur for 14 days. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments made in the writ petition about the petitioner being physically assaulted. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments made in the writ petition about the petitioner being physically assaulted. It is further stated in the affidavit that that said the averment was totally baseless and concocted and that had the alleged incident really occurred, the petitioner could have brought it to the notice to the authorities so that he could have been treated at the CRPF hospital itself but he failed to do that and deserted the GC Campus without any permission. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his argument as regards the quantum of punishment only relying upon the judgment and order dated 24-04-2015 passed by this court in writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 309 of 2014 wherein a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner therein on the charge that he had fired one round of ammunition from his service rifle without any sufficient cause. After holding an enquiry, the petitioner was awarded a penalty of removal from service. This court after examining materials on record came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner therein was not commensurate with the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside with the direction that the respondents therein shall consider the case of the petitioner and issue an appropriate order modifying the punishment commensurate with the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG has submitted that since the punishment awarded is commensurate with the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, this court may not interfere with it. 5. On the other hand, Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG has submitted that since the punishment awarded is commensurate with the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, this court may not interfere with it. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Constable Ramvir Singh v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 97 wherein the appellant was removed from service on account of his refusal to take food in protest when he was awarded 7 days rigorous imprisonment in the custody of the BSF for his being failure to return to place of duty despite instructions being given to him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was not a case where the High Court come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed was shocking to the conscience. Reliance also has been placed by him on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner, KVS v. J. Hussain reported in AIR 2014 SC 766 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of punishment is to be imposed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the scope of judicial review in matters of punishment is permissible and interference is available only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. 6. In the present case, the Second Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the charge that the petitioner deserted from the camp for a period of 40 (forty) days from 14-10-2010 to 22-11-2010 without any permission and after an enquiry having been concluded, the petitioner was awarded a penalty of 'removal from service'. The reasons as to why the penalty for removal from services is awarded, as observed in the order dated 16-06-2011, are that the petitioner was already awarded major punishment for stoppage of annual increment for three years with cumulative effect on the basis of the 1st Departmental Enquiry and without showing any improvement, he deserted from the campus without any permission and he was an indisciplined CT/GD having scant respect for the rules and regulations. One more aspect which the disciplinary authority had considered while issuing the impugned order dated 16-06-2011 is that while the 2nd departmental was going on in full swing, the petitioner had deserted the camp for two days with effect from 08-03-2011 to 10-03-2011. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we don't find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The facts of the case, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, are not similar to that of the present one wherein the conduct of the petitioner shows that he is a habitual offender having no respect for the discipline and is unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. 8. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, this court is of the view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.