JUDGMENT : VASANTI A NAIK, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service as also the orders of the appellate and the revisional authority upholding the punishment. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a member of the Central Reserved Police Force on 08.08.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner sought leave due to his mother’s ailment in August2016. Leave was sanctioned to the petitioner from 15.08.2006 to 03.09.2006. However, the petitioner overstayed the sanctioned leave and unauthorizedly remained absent from duty from 04.09.2006 to 14.11.2006. On 12.12.2006, the order directing the petitioner to undergo one hour pack drill was passed by the Commandant of 122 Battalion and the punishment of lineimprisonment for a period of 21 days was imposed upon the petitioner and the pay of the petitioner for the said period was also forfeited. On 12.12.2006, a memorandum of charge was served on the petitioner. By the said memorandum, two charges were levelled against the petitioner, one in regard to his unauthorized absence for 72 days from 04.09.2006 to 14.11.2006 and the second in regard to the failure on the part of the petitioner to accept the one hour pack drill in terms of the order of the Commandant of 122 Battalion, dated 12.12.2006. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the aforesaid charges. Though the notice of the enquiry proceedings was served on the petitioner, the petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry and did not examine any witnesses. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. In view of the proof of the charges, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service was passed. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Same was the fate of a revision filed by the petitioner against the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authorities. Being aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 3. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Same was the fate of a revision filed by the petitioner against the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authorities. Being aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 3. Shri Sunderam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents were not justified in conducting a departmental enquiry against the petitioner for overstaying the leave under the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, as punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner under Section 10(m) of the Act. It is stated that after the Commandant of the Battalion had imposed the punishment of 21 days lineimprisonment, forfeiture of pay and one hour pack drill, the respondents were not justified in initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It is submitted that the punishment of dismissal after holding a departmental enquiry would amount to double jeopardy as the petitioner was also punished by the Commandant under Section 10(m) of the Act. It is submitted that only punishment of reduction in rank, imposition of fine, confining to quarters, removal from any office, etc. could have been passed under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. It is stated that while conducting the departmental enquiry Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules was not adhered to. It is submitted that the procedure that was required to be followed in terms of Rule 27(4) was not followed during the course of the departmental enquiry. It is submitted that the punishment of dismissal is extremely harsh and disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner. It is stated that merely for unauthorized absence, the punishment of dismissal from service could not have been imposed. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2005 SC 4289 (Union of India & Others Versus Gulam Mohd. Bhat) to substantiate the submission that a lesser punishment should have been imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Mrs.Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the respondents, supported the orders of the authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner was directed to undergo line imprisonment and one hour pack drill in terms of the order of the Commandant of the Battalion dated 12.12.2006. Bhat) to substantiate the submission that a lesser punishment should have been imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Mrs.Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the respondents, supported the orders of the authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner was directed to undergo line imprisonment and one hour pack drill in terms of the order of the Commandant of the Battalion dated 12.12.2006. It is submitted that the petitioner did not undergo the said imprisonment and refused to perform the one hour pack drill. It is submitted that in view of the refusal on the part of the petitioner to perform one hour pack drill, an additional article of charge, apart from the charge of unauthorized absence was framed against the petitioner by the order dated 12.12.2006. It is submitted that on a combined reading of the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 12, it could be said that a member of the Central Reserve Police Force could be sentenced to imprisonment under Section 10(m) of the Act and also could be dismissed from service. It is submitted that since the petitioner had overstayed the leave for more than 72 days and had also refused to perform the pack drill for one hour, the petitioner was not entitled to serve the Central Reserve Police Force. It is submitted that the procedure under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1955 was duly followed while conducting the departmental enquiry. It is stated that time and again, the petitioner was served with the notice of the enquiry but, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry and did not examine any witness. It is stated that if an opportunity is granted to the member of the force but the member of the force does not avail the said opportunity, the competent authority cannot be blamed for not following the procedure under Rule 27 of the Rules. The learned counsel relied on a judgment reported in 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 774 (Ramesh s/o Mahadu Wankhede Versus Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi & Others) and an unreported judgment – order of this Court dated 19.06.2015 in Writ Petition No.2324 of 2014 to substantiate her submission that the punishment of dismissal from the Central Reserve Police Force would not be harsh or disproportionate in case where a member of Central Reserve Police Force, which is a very disciplined force, remains unauthorizedly absent for quite some time. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the provisions of the Act of 1949, it appears that the respondents were entitled to impose punishment upon the petitioner under Section 10 as well as 11 of the Act. Under Section 10 of the Act, any member of the force who absents himself without leave or without sufficient cause overstays the leave granted to him, could be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or a fine which may extend to three months pay, or both. Taking a serious note of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner for 72 days, the Commandant of the Battalion passed an order on 12.12.2006, imposing 21 days line imprisonment on the petitioner and asking him to perform one hour pack drill. The petitioner refused to perform one hour pack drill. After the respondents noticed that the petitioner had refused to perform one hour pack drill, a chargesheet was served on the petitioner on 12.12.2006, leveling two charges against the petitioner, one pertaining to his unauthorized absence for 72 days and the second pertaining to the refusal on the part of the petitioner to obey the orders of the superiors to accept one hour pack drill. The departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the aforesaid two charges in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1955. Though the petitioner was served with the notice of the enquiry, the petitioner did not bother to defend the charges levelled against him and also did not examine any witness in support of his defence. Opportunity was granted to the petitioner from time to time during the enquiry, as could be gathered from the office order No.PA16/2006 of February, 2007. If the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry, the petitioner cannot be heard to state that the respondents had failed to follow the procedure as laid down in Rule 27(4) of the Rules of 1955. We find that not only was the charge of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty for a period of 72 days proved against the petitioner but the other charge of not obeying the orders of the Commandant / Superior of performing one hour pack drill was also proved against him. We find that not only was the charge of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty for a period of 72 days proved against the petitioner but the other charge of not obeying the orders of the Commandant / Superior of performing one hour pack drill was also proved against him. As rightly submitted by the respondents, the petitioner was a member of the disciplined force and it was expected of the petitioner as a member of the disciplined force not to have overstayed the leave from 04.09.2006 to 14.11.2006. It was also expected of the petitioner as a member of the disciplined force to have obeyed the order of the Commandant of the Battalion to perform one hour pack drill. The petitioner had flatly refused to perform one hour pack drill and, therefore, while taking action against the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act, the respondents rightly levelled a charge of remaining unauthorizedly absent for 72 days as well as dis-obedience of the orders of the superiors, against him. We do not find that there is double jeopardy in view of the imposition of the sentence of 21 days line imprisonment and forfeiture of pay under Section 10 of the Act and the order dismissing the petitioner from service after conducting a departmental enquiry in pursuance of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1955. On a combined reading of the provisions of Section 10, 11 and 12 of the Act of 1949, it cannot be said that a member of the Central Reserve Police Force cannot be dismissed from service if an order of imprisonment and forfeiture of pay and allowances is passed against him under Section 10 of the Act. On a reading of sub Section 2 of Section 12 of the Act, it is clear that even a dismissed member of the force could be imprisoned in terms of the order imposed upon him under Section 10 of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner. A member of the Central Reserve Police Force is required to maintain a greater standard of discipline and since the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a member of the Central Reserve Police Force, the respondents had rightly inflicted the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner from service. In the circumstances of the case, the judgment reported in AIR 2005 SC 4289 (Union of India & Others Versus Gulam Mohd. Bhat) cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner while challenging the impugned orders. Since there is no scope for interference with the impugned order, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.