JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This application is directed against the order dated 23.11.2001 passed by the Commandant 52 Bn., CRPF (respondent No. 3) whereby and whereunder petitioner was dismissed from service. 2. The facts leading to this case are that the petitioner working in E-Coy of 52 Bn., applied for sixty days’ earned leave in the month of December, 2000 which was sanctioned. Accordingly, he proceeded on earned leave w.e.f. 11.12.2000 to 8.2.2001. He was supposed to resume his duty on 9.2.2001. However, before expiry of leave the petitioner sent a letter to Officer Commandant, E/52 also requesting therein to extend his leave for another sixty days. The said prayer was considered and rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed vide letters dated 9.2.2001, 1.3.2001 and 19.3.2001 to report back immediately. In response to that the petitioner replied that since he has some domestic problem he will report on duty after 9.4.2001 but he did not report for duty till 19.4.2001. Under the said circumstance the Coy was declared as deserter w.e.f. 9.2.2001, that is from the date of unauthorised absence from duty. Consequently, a warrant of arrest was issued on 18.4.2001 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under order dated 7.7.2001 under section 11/1 of the CRPF Act, 1949 on the charge of being absent from duty w.e.f. 9.2.2001 till date unauthorisedly without any permission of the competent authority. Accordingly, a copy of memorandum of charge, statements of allegation and list of witnesses were sent to the petitioner under registered post on 10.7.2001. When the petitioner did not respond to that Deputy Commandant namely Kishor Prasad, was appointed as Inquiry Officer for holding departmental inquiry. This was also informed through registered post sent on 26.7.2001. That apart, Inquiry Officer also wrote letter to the petitioner asking him to be present during inquiry. Instead of appearing in the inquiry, the petitioner vide his letter dated 3.8.2001 informed to the Inquiry Officer about his inability to participate in the proceeding on account of matrimonial problem. Simultaneously, the petitioner, vide his said letter, made a request to discharge him from service. In response to that the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 14.8.2001 that certain procedures are there to be followed before request of discharge is accepted. At the same time, he was again requested to report to duty. Simultaneously, the petitioner, vide his said letter, made a request to discharge him from service. In response to that the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 14.8.2001 that certain procedures are there to be followed before request of discharge is accepted. At the same time, he was again requested to report to duty. Meanwhile another Inquiry Officer, Y.N. Rai, Assistant Commandant, was appointed on account of transfer of earlier Inquiry Officer. The information regarding appointment of Inquiry Officer was also given to the petitioner by sending letter. At the same time, the petitioner was also directed to join duty and to participate in the proceeding. In spite of that when the petitioner did not appear, inquiry was taken up ex-parte during which witnesses were examined and documentary evidences were also adduced. Thereafter copies of the evidences recorded and also the other material evidences adduced during inquiry were sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.9.2001 with a direction to adduce evidence in defence by 25.10.2001. The petitioner did not respond to that. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer did find the petitioner guilty of the charges and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority vide its letter dated 1.11.2001. After the inquiry report was submitted a letter of the petitioner dated 14.10.2001 was received on 211.2001 wherein he informed that he does have a matrimonial problem which has reached to the Court, which he is pursuing and as such he could not participate in the inquiry. The said letter was sent by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority who communicated the said inquiry report on 6.11.2001 under forwarding letter dated 3.11.2001 under registered post, directing therein to put forth his case within fifteen days. Instead of placing any material in his defence the petitioner vide his letter dated 12.11.2001 again reiterated the same thing that matrimonial dispute is going on in between him and his wife. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority after taking into evidence put forth during inquiry passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service on 23.11.2001 which is under challenge. 3. Mr. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority after taking into evidence put forth during inquiry passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service on 23.11.2001 which is under challenge. 3. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself and that before passing dismissal order copy of the inquiry report was not served to the petitioner and thereby Disciplinary Authority committed illegality in passing the order of dismissal of the petitioner as non furnishing of the report to the delinquent amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, learned counsel referred to a decision rendered in a case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 . Learned senior counsel, by elaborating his submission did state that the petitioner has specifically taken the plea in the petition that the copy of the inquiry report has not been served which in fact has not been denied specifically by the respondent in its counter affidavit and thereby it be accepted that copy of the inquiry report has not been furnished and on this ground alone the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 4. As against this, Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to say that the said fact has not been denied, rather it has been denied, though may not be in specific terms as is being expected by the petitioner. But the record of the proceeding would go to show that the petitioner was informed at every stage about the proceeding and was directed at number of occasions to participate in the inquiry but he completely ignored it and that after the inquiry report was submitted holding the petitioner to be guilty the disciplinary authority sent a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner directing him to produce evidence in support of his case but he did not do that and thereby it cannot be said, under the circumstance, as stated above, to be a case of non compliance of procedure or violation of principle of justice and as such impugned order never warrants to be quashed. 5. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal of the record of the proceeding which was produced, we do find that petitioner was put on departmental inquiry on the charge of absence from duty w.e.f. 11.12.2000 till the date when charge was framed of unauthorised leave. Copy of the memorandum of charge and also list of witnesses, statement of accusation were sent to the petitioner under registered post with the direction to the petitioner to resume duty and to participate in the inquiry. When he did not respond to that Inquiry Officer was appointed, who also directed the petitioner to participate in the proceeding. But the petitioner ignored it completely and thereby proceeding was taken up ex-parte, during which evidences were adduced. After the oral and documentary evidences were adduced copies of it were sent to the petitioner directing him to adduce his evidence in defence. To this also the petitioner did not respond, rather submitted an application to the effect that he is in problem on account of matrimonial dispute. In such situation, Inquiry Officer passed an order holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority who sent the said report to the petitioner for having response on it. But again the petitioner ignored it. However, the stand which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the report was never served upon the petitioner and to this fact a categorical statement has been made but that has not been denied specifically. However, from the counter affidavit we do find that the statement with respect to copy of the inquiry report being not made available has been denied though it is not in so specific term. But the record of the proceeding which was produced before us clearly indicates that the inquiry report was sent under registered cover. Further, it further transpires that after the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner, he sent a letter dated 12.11.2001 wherein he again reiterated about he being in problem on account of matrimonial dispute. Thus, it appears that the petitioner not only on one or two occasions were informed about the proceeding of the inquiry but at number of occasions he was informed to resume duty and to participate in the proceeding, but the petitioner did ignore it. 6. Thus, it appears that the petitioner not only on one or two occasions were informed about the proceeding of the inquiry but at number of occasions he was informed to resume duty and to participate in the proceeding, but the petitioner did ignore it. 6. Under these circumstances, it is hard to accept the submission that inquiry report was never made available to the petitioner. Thus, we do find that neither there appears to be any irregularity in the proceeding nor there appears to be violation of principles of natural justice. Under the circumstance, we do not find any merit in this case and, thereby order of dismissal never warrants any interference by this Court. Thus, this application stands dismissed. However, whatever dues are due to the petitioner prior to his unauthorised leave, the same be paid.