JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Ms. S. Bora, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC. 2. The petitioner was a Constable/Driver in the 36 Battalion of the C.R.P.F. He challenges the order dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-D), whereby in pursuant to the Disciplinary Proceeding (D.P), the Commandant of the 36 Battalion has ordered for removal of the Constable/Driver. Earlier the delinquent was granted earned leave from 4.5.2002 to 2.7.2002 on account of his father illness, but he failed to report back to the Battalion, after completion of the leave period. Then directions were issued on 6.7.2002, 10.8.2002 and 28.9.2002 respectively to the absentee constable, to immediately rejoin the Battalion. 3. But when the Constable failed to report back and ignored the commands of the Battalion Headquarters, the arrest warrant was issued against him on 25.10.2002. Then the Board of Officer was detailed to conduct a Court of Inquiry (COI), under Rule 31 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the C.R.P.F. Rules”) through an order dated 10.1.2013. On the basis of the COI proceeding, the delinquent was declared to be a deserter w.e.f. 3.7.2002. 4. Thereafter the Charge Memo dated 28.4.2003 was drawn up against the delinquent and it was forwarded by registered post to his home address, so that reply can be given by the absentee Constable. But no response was received and accordingly the Assistant Commandant was appointed as an Enquiry Officer (E.O.) on 14.5.2003 to enquire into the charges, which are extracted hereinbelow, for ready reference : “Charge No.1: That during the employment, Bhagawan Singh, Constable/Driver, No.943331015, Battalion Headquarter 36, CRPF by virtue of being a member of the force under the provision of Section 11.1 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 has not rendered his assigned duties diligently nor has complied with the orders of the superiors, which includes the authorized absence of 60 days i.e. from 04-05-2002 to 02-07-2002 but had remained absent after the expiry of sanctioned leave without assigning any reason nor obtaining permission from the competent authority. Charge No.2: That during the aforesaid period and during the employment, Bhagawan Singh, Constable/Driver, No.943331015, Battalion Headquarter 36, CRPF by virtue of being a member of the force under the provision of Section 11.1 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 was found guilty of not rendering his assigned duties diligently and for not complying with the orders of the superiors. Further, on 03-07-2002 after expiry of the sanctioned leave i.e. from 04-05-2002 to 02-07-2002, he remained absent and inspite of the repeated directions vide this Office letter No.L.D.-2/02-Head Quarter/36 dated 06-07-2002, 10-08-2002 and 28-09-2002 he did not report at the Battalion Headquarter.” 5. In order to provide opportunity to the delinquent, the Enquiry Officer issued a registered letter on 17.5.2003 with direction to make himself available for a preliminary hearing before the E.O. on 1.6.2003 with intimation that on failure, ex-parte enquiry will be conducted. This letter was received by the Constable at his home address on 23.5.2003 but he failed to make himself available during the enquiry or submit any defence evidence. 6. Then ex-parte enquiry started and another registered letter was sent by the E.O. on 5.6.2003, where the statement of the PWs and Exhibits were enclosed to enable the delinquent to give his response. But when no such response was received, the E.O. on the basis of the available evidence, prepared the Inquiry Report on 21.6.2003. 7. The copy of the Inquiry Report was forwarded on 2.7.2003 to enable the Constable to file his response but once again, the delinquent failed to respond to the notice. Eventually, after evaluating the inquiry finding and the gravity of the misconduct, the disciplinary authority on 21.7.2003 (Annexure-D) ordered for removal of the delinquent. The resultant Appeal filed by the Constable was rejected on 20.11.2003 (Annexure-E), by the DIG of C.R.P.F. with a reasoned order. 8. The disciplinary action was initially challenged by the petitioner in the Allahabad High Court but the WP(C) NO.21070/2004 was not entertained for want of territorial jurisdiction under the order dated 18.2.2009 (Page-58). After dismissal of the case by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner has approached this Court on 29.7.2008. 9.1. Challenging the legality of the disciplinary action, the petitioner contends that he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend the charges and therefore the same should be interfered by the High Court 9.2. The learned Counsel Ms. After dismissal of the case by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner has approached this Court on 29.7.2008. 9.1. Challenging the legality of the disciplinary action, the petitioner contends that he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend the charges and therefore the same should be interfered by the High Court 9.2. The learned Counsel Ms. S. Bora submits that punishment is disproportionate for the misconduct of unauthorized absence and therefore a lesser penalty should be considered for the delinquent. 9.3. Moreover the absence for one year is claimed to be on account of serious illness of the Constable and in support of his medical condition, the learned Counsel relies on the doctor’s Certificate issued on 11.6.2003, by one private doctor of Aligarh. In this Certificate, the petitioner is shown to be suffering from Lumbago Sciatica Syndrome and was treated from 25.6.2002 until 11.6.2003 by the MBBS doctor at Aligarh. 10.1. On the other hand, Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC submits that the petitioner cannot complain about denial of due opportunity in the D.P. as it is he himself, who failed to respond to any of the notices of the Battalion Headquarters, and also of the Enquiry Officer. 10.2. The respondents contend that unauthorized absence for about a year is a serious misconduct for a member of a disciplined force and accordingly the penalty or removal is contended to be justified. 10.3. The learned CGC further submits that the ailment of the delinquent cannot be believed on the basis of the Certificate of the private doctor, as the petitioner in the event of any serious ailment, could have easily approached the doctor of the 104 C.R.P.F. Battalion, deployed at Aligarh and a Certificate from the Battalion doctor, would have been surely acceptable. 11. The procedure of award of punishment for the C.R.P.F. personal is prescribed in Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules and a departmental inquiry is contemplated, before any punishment can be inflicted. The procedure for conducting the departmental inquiry is also prescribed under Sub-Rule (c) of Rule 27 in order to ensure that a fair opportunity is provided, to the delinquent. 12. In the present case, the delinquent failed to report back to the Battalion after availing earned leave from 4.5.2002 – 2.7.2002. Despite the reminders sent from the Battalion Headquarters on 6.7.2002, 10.8.2002 and 28.9.2002 respectively, the Constable failed to obey the command to resume duty. 12. In the present case, the delinquent failed to report back to the Battalion after availing earned leave from 4.5.2002 – 2.7.2002. Despite the reminders sent from the Battalion Headquarters on 6.7.2002, 10.8.2002 and 28.9.2002 respectively, the Constable failed to obey the command to resume duty. Thereafter an arrest warrant was issued against him on 25.10.2002 and on the basis of the COI proceeding, the missing Constable was declared to be a deserter. 13. Only after the above steps were taken the charges were drawn up on 28.4.2003 with opportunity to the delinquent to respond to the charges. But when he failed to submit any response, the E.O. was appointed, who too afforded opportunity on two occasions to the delinquent, to participate in the departmental inquiry. But when the Constable failed to respond to the charge memo and the notices of the E.O., the ex-parte finding was recorded on 21.6.2003 by the Enquiry Officer. 14. At the stage of evaluation of the inquiry finding, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the Inquiry Report for the comments of the delinquent, but once again he failed to respond. Faced with these facts and considering the gravity of the misconduct, the order for removal from service was issued by the Disciplinary Authority, on 21.7.2003 (Annexure-D). 15. The above discussion clearly reflects the defiant attitude of the delinquent who failed to respond to the multiple summons from the Disciplinary Authority and also the notices of the E.O. Therefore, the Court cannot accept that it is a case of denial of reasonable opportunity, to the errant Constable. On the other hand, the Constable himself failed to avail the opportunity provided to him, by failing to participate in the departmental inquiry, despite due notices for his appearance. Hence his submission on want of reasonable opportunity is wholly misconceived. The DP in my opinion was conducted with due adherence to the legal requirement and no infirmity is seen in the proceeding. 16. Moreover, the doctors Certificate produced by the petitioner to justify his absence for about 12 months does not inspire confidence as this certificate was given by a private doctor on 11.6.2003, while the petitioner claimed to be ailing since 25.6.2002. Relevant contemporaneous documents such as pathology and X-ray report, prescription etc. should have been produced to lend credence to the doctor’s Certificate. Relevant contemporaneous documents such as pathology and X-ray report, prescription etc. should have been produced to lend credence to the doctor’s Certificate. But no such believable material was ever produced by the constable to support his claim of long illness. Therefore, the plea of ailment cannot be believed for the year long unauthorized absence. In the event of serious illness, it would have been more reasonable for the petitioner to consult the doctor of the 104 CRPF Battalion posted at Aligarh or any other Specialist Doctor in a Hospital. But when no supporting material is produced, the plea of medical ailment appear to be a figment of imagination. 17. The Constable was granted 2 months earned leave from 4.5.2002 – 2.7.2002 but he failed to report back to the Battalion at the end of the leave period. He also ignored the multiple summons issued from the Battalion Headquarters to resume his duties. In fact, a warrant of arrest was issued against him and he was also declared to be a deserter. Such long unauthorized absence and defiance of the authorities cannot in my view be treated as minor misconduct and therefore the termination of service, is found to be proportionate to the gravity of the charges. 18. For the foregoing discussion, the challenge to the disciplinary action is found devoid of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. At this stage, learned Counsel Ms. S. Bora points out that the petitioner has not been paid his salary for his earned leave period and he is yet to receive his GPF, Group Insurance and Leave Salary dues. 19. Bearing in mind the preceding submission of the petitioner’s lawyer, while dismissing the case against the disciplinary action, the respondents are directed to verify if any dues are to be received by the writ petitioner and if any amount is found due, the same is ordered to be disbursed to the terminated Constable within 3 months. It is ordered accordingly. 20. With the above order, the case stands disposed of without any order on cost. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned CGC Ms. A. Gayan to ensure for informing the authorities.