JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition involves the order of dismissal dated 8.10.2005 under Annexure-6 and the order dated 6.2.2006 at Annexure-9 passed by the appellate Authority confirming the order of termination passed by the Disciplinary Authority after observing that the same is just and fair. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner is a resident of New Delhi joined as a Constable of General Duty bearing Force No. 941196034 under the Central Reserve Police Force on 1.6.1994. While the petitioner was working as such in 39 Battalion, Tinsukia, Assam, on 5.3.2004 he was transferred from the above place to 149 Battalion Group Center, Bhubaneswar but he was returned by the Commandant, 149 Battalion Group Center, Bhubaneswar to report back to 39 Battalion on 17.3.2004 due to unsatisfactory records. It appears; petitioner failed to report from duty before the Commandant, 39 Battalion, Tinsukia, Assam on 18.3.2004. His transferred back order was issued vide movement order dated 5.3.2004 finds place at Annexure-1. For unauthorized absence of the petitioner, a Department Inquiry was ordered against the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with Rules 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rule, 1955 for unauthorized absence with effect from 18.3.2004 to 17.10.2004. Charge sheet was framed involving the petitioner on 9.2.2005 sending a copy of charge sheet for committing an act of serious misconduct and disobedience of order in his capacity as a Member for the Force by deserting office with effect from 18.3.2004 after he was relieved on transfer from 149 Battalion without any leave/permission/information of the competent authority enclosing therein the copy of the article of charges, statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses. The petitioner was directed vide Annexure-2 to attend the inquiry for further intimation that for his nonattendance in the inquiry, the inquiry shall be concluded ex-parte. Petitioner responded the charges as being ambiguous and not constituting any misconduct. The further response of the petitioner was that he was accompanied by his uncle and had taken meal in the mess when he reported for duties to the Commandant, but he was not shown present in the Campus for 2 days despite the fact that he was very much present in the Campus. The further response of the petitioner was that he was accompanied by his uncle and had taken meal in the mess when he reported for duties to the Commandant, but he was not shown present in the Campus for 2 days despite the fact that he was very much present in the Campus. It is further stated by the petitioner that the petitioner had taken eatable food items from vendor while he was undertaking the journey in Puri-Howrah Express Train on road. Petitioner became senseless and lost his memory during en-route. Ultimately, the petitioner found himself at Rohtak Psychiatry Centre for treatment from 26.3.2004 up to 7.10.2004. Petitioner alleged that before petitioner’s filing any explanation to the charges, the opposite party no. 5 appointed the Inquiry Officer to deal de-novo inquiry against the petitioner on 13.2.2005, which alleged to have been in gross violation of rules. It is next contended by the petitioner that during the Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner submitted 3 (three) medical documents in his favour establishing his absence for unavoidable circumstances. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry without considering the legitimate grievance of the petitioner. Disciplinary Authority supplied the inquiry report to the petitioner with a direction for submission of his response thereof on 8.10.2005. Petitioner submitted his response against the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. It is alleged, for the reason best known, the response of the petitioner has not been taken into account by the Disciplinary Authority. Further, for imposition of major penalty, by the Disciplinary Authority following the rules, petitioner preferred appeal on 24.10.2005. It is alleged that the appeal has been rejected in absence of consideration of the case of the petitioner and holding the decision of the Disciplinary Authority is just and fair. 3. Miss. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet was supplied without containing the statement of allegation basing upon which the charges were framed. Further, for non-supply of document in spite of repeated request, learned counsel also contended that the Inquiry vitiates on this ground alone. It is further alleged by Miss, Mohapatra that Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority prior to submission of explanation by the petitioner. Further, for non-supply of document in spite of repeated request, learned counsel also contended that the Inquiry vitiates on this ground alone. It is further alleged by Miss, Mohapatra that Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority prior to submission of explanation by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was also not allowed to engage a Defence Assistant in the Departmental preceding despite that there is a provision for taking assistance of a Defence Assistance by the delinquent. Miss. Mohapatra, further challenged the impugned orders on the premises that there is no provision for a de-novo inquiry especially when first inquiry exonerated the petitioner, Miss. Mohapatra, learned counsel contended that the punishment imposed is also disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. For the grounds stated hereinabove, Miss. Mohapatra prayed this Court for interfering in the orders vide Annexures-6 and 9 and held the same as bad in law. In support of her contention, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision reported in the case of Union of India and Others vs. P. Thayagarajan, AIR 1999 SC 449 . 4. Pursuant to service of notice, opposite party nos. 1 to 5 in their common counter affidavit contended that the petitioner was relieved to 149 Battalion, C.R.P.F. on transfer from his previous posting on 5.3.2004 (A.N.). But for his unsatisfactory service, he has been returned by Commandant 149 Battalion on 17.3.2004 with direction to report back to 39 Battalion, the original place of posting of the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner instead of reporting in 39 Battalion deserted en-route without prior permission/sanction of leave of the competent authority. An F.I.R. was lodged at P.S. Bardubi, Tinsukia (Assam) on 8.4.2004. A telegram was also sent to his home address. Subsequently, speed post letter also was sent to his father in his New Delhi address. Communications were also made with 10 Battalion to find out as to whether the delinquent was available at his home, in response to which, 10 Battalion, C.R.P.F. vide Signal No. M-V-104-Adjt-10 dated 20.4.2004 intimated that no such person was available at his home address and he was not staying at the above address. Communications were also made with 10 Battalion to find out as to whether the delinquent was available at his home, in response to which, 10 Battalion, C.R.P.F. vide Signal No. M-V-104-Adjt-10 dated 20.4.2004 intimated that no such person was available at his home address and he was not staying at the above address. Consequence upon which a Court of Inquiry was conducted vide 39 Battalion Office order No. D.II-03/0439-EC-II dated 31.5.2004 and basing on Court Inquiry Proceeding, the petitioner was declared as a “deserter” from the Force with effect from 18.3.2004 (FN) vide Office Order dated 31.8.2004. Ultimately, the petitioner reported to 39 Battalion after two months of declaring him a deserter on 12.10.2004 after a gap of 208 days of actual desertion. It is claimed that during this desertion period, neither the petitioner nor his family member made any correspondence. Leaving no other option than to hold a Departmental Inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for Departmental Inquiry. Inquiry being concluded after due compliance of the procedures, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority for its decision. During scrutiny of the proceeding, a large number of procedural mistakes were detected in the proceeding and finding that the Inquiry Officer proceeded in course for a long duration, the Disciplinary Authority thought it appropriate for a de-novo inquiry under Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955. It is on the basis of fresh report involving the fresh inquiry proceeding, Disciplinary Authority completely agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 8.10.2005 against the petitioner. To the allegation of the petitioner regarding completion of the inquiry in a perpetual manner, the opposite parties have a flat denial to such allegations. It is also asserted by the opposite parties that during the Departmental Inquiry, every document asked for by the delinquent have been provided to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer and signature of the delinquent has also been obtained in the Departmental Inquiry file in proof of the same. On the allegation that the petitioner was not provided with Defence Assistant, opposite parties submitted that to the asking of the authority to the delinquent to have any Defence Assistant, the delinquent had a flat refusal for the same. On the allegation that the petitioner was not provided with Defence Assistant, opposite parties submitted that to the asking of the authority to the delinquent to have any Defence Assistant, the delinquent had a flat refusal for the same. To the allegation regarding direction for de-novo inquiry, it is asserted that as the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the report involving first inquiry, for having procedural lapses and further for the long absence of the said Inquiry Officer, compelled the authority to have the de-novo inquiry and the de-novo inquiry was conducted following the procedure under Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule 27(c) of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955. It is under the above premises, justifying the impugned order, Miss. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Hearing the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds, the admitted fact is that the petitioner while continuing in 39 Battalion was transferred to 149 Battalion, C.R.P.F. Group Center Campus, Bhubaneswar on his transfer on 5.3.2004 (AN). It is also a fact that due to his unsatisfactory service, he has been returned by the Commandant 149 Battalion on 17.3.2004 with direction to report back at 39Bn. It appears, the petitioner instead of reporting to 39 Battalion, remained absconded and returned back at 39 Battalion, Tinsukia, Assam only on 12.10.2004, after a gap of 208 days of actual desertion. It also appears, during this period of desertion, even though the delinquent-petitioner claims that he was sick and under treatment of some hospitals, but there was no communication either by the petitioner or by any of his relations to the employer. Admittedly, there is a Departmental Proceeding involving the petitioner and finding the procedural lapses in the Departmental proceeding initiated at the first instance, the Disciplinary Authority had no other option than to direct for a fresh inquiry and for the reason of non-availability of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority was compelled to have a de-novo inquiry. Admittedly, there is a Departmental Proceeding involving the petitioner and finding the procedural lapses in the Departmental proceeding initiated at the first instance, the Disciplinary Authority had no other option than to direct for a fresh inquiry and for the reason of non-availability of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority was compelled to have a de-novo inquiry. From the point of view of claim of the petitioner that he was suffering during the absence period and he was under treatment in a hospital, as disclosed by the delinquent, this Court finds there is no single document establishing such claim before the Inquiry Authority except the petitioner filed some medical supporting appearing at Annexure-3 series which under no stretch of imagination can establish the claim of the petitioner as an indoor patient and as such he was unable to join back in his former place of posting at 39 Battalion, Tinsukia. The documents vide Annexure-3 series rather disclose the petitioner undergone some treatment in the worse as an O.P.D. Patient and the certificate also being granted by a private doctor. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he was under treatment in Rohtak Psychiatry Centre has no support to his claim and the documents filed in Annexure-3 series are of no help. Under the circumstance, for no proof of petitioner asking supply of any document to establish his case in the Disciplinary Proceeding and being declined and further for the specific response of the opposite parties to the effect that petitioner’s asking for supply of documents have all been provided and after obtaining signature of the petitioner as delinquent in the proceeding file and further for the petitioner’s denying to the Defence Assistant also have no support to either of the claim of the petitioner. Now considering the claim of the petitioner that for the exoneration of the petitioner in the first inquiry, there was no scope for de-novo inquiry, nowhere from the materials available on record and the pleadings of the respective parties, this Court unable to find any inquiry report exonerating the petitioner rather there is material available establishing the first inquiry being found to be full procedural latches, the Disciplinary Authority directed for a de-novo inquiry and that too under the compelling situation that the Inquiry Officer was not available to undertake the inquiry proceeding for his proceeding on long leave. It is under the circumstances, this Court proceeded to examine as to whether a de-novo inquiry could have been directed involving the Disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. As indicated hereinabove, the contingency for de-novo inquiry as per the submission of the contesting opposite parties was firstly for the procedural lapses involving the first inquiry and for the non-availability of the Inquiry Officer to undertake the process of Disciplinary Proceeding afresh. Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rule, 1955 prescribes procedure for awarding of punishment. Rule 27(1) speaks up punishment or dismissal or removal from the Force to be inflicted by the authorities named against it after a formal departmental inquiry. Rule 27 (c) deals with the procedure for conducting a departmental Inquiry. Entire reading of the procedure at Rule 27, this Court observes that it simply speaks for conducting a Departmental Proceeding and basing on the submission of the report by the Inquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority has to pass the necessary order. The first inquiry proceeding involved the Disciplinary Authority records a finding that there has been procedural latches in the first inquiry report and it is under such circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority on its finding non-availability of the Inquiry Officer directed for de-novo inquiry. This Court finds the de-novo inquiry was in the interest of the petitioner and the statute nowhere restricted de-novo inquiry under the circumstance. Further, for the petitioner’s effectively participating in the de-novo inquiry and for the petitioner’s failure in establishing his case in the de-novo inquiry, this Court finds there is no infirmity in the inquiry proceeding. Consequently, this Court finds there is no infirmity in the punishment order of the Disciplinary Authority. Perused the order passed by the appellate authority. Considering the submission of Miss. Mohapatra based on the decision reported in the case of Union of India and Others vs. P. Thayagarajan, AIR 1999 SC 449 (supra), for the circumstance indicated hereinabove, the decision has no application to the case of the petitioner. For the detailed consideration of the claim of the petitioner and answering by the appellate authority to each of the objections raised by the petitioner, this Court finds there is no infirmity in the appellate order also. 6. As a result, this Court while declining to interfere in the impugned order, dismisses the writ petition for having no merit. However, there is no order as to cost.