JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.09.2017 in C.W.J.C. No. 10516 of 2015, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition and has confirmed the order of removal passed by the Commandant which came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the original writ-petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nut shell are as under:- 2.1. That the appellant herein, the original writ-petitioner, was appointed as GD Central Reserve Police Force in the year 2003. That while he was posted as Cobra Commandant in 265 Battalion, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him for remaining unauthorized absent for the period between 05.06.2013 to 14.06.2013; for the period between 19.07.2013 to 28.08.2013 and also for not obeying the orders issued by the officer commanding-C/91 Bn CRPF and also committing acts of misconduct/neglect of duty in the discharge of his duty in capacity as a member for the Force. That the Articles of Charges read as under:- “ARTICLE-I That the said No. 031459942 CT/GD Mukesh Kumar of C/91 Bn, CRPF, while functioning as Constable/GD committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 in that he absented himself unauthorizedly from 05/06/2013 to 14/06/2013 [Total 10 days] without obtaining prior permission/sanction of leave from the competent authority, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force. ARTICLE-II That the said No. 031459942 CT/GD Mukesh Kumar of C/91 Bn, CRPF, while functioning as Constable/GD committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 in that he absented himself unauthorizedly from 19/07/2013 to 28/08/2013 [Total 41 days] without obtaining prior permission/sanction of leave from the competent authority, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force. ARTICLE-III That No. 031459942 CT/GD Mukesh Kumar of C/91 Bn, CRPF, while functioning as Constable/GD committed an act of misconduct under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he disobeyed the lawful orders of his officer commanding, C/91 Bn CRPF who directed him vide letter No. L.II-3/13-C/91 dated 25/07/13, 03/08/2013 and 10/08/2013 to report for duty and he failed to comply with the orders issued by officer commanding-C/91 Bn which is against the good order and discipline of the Force. ARTICLE-IV That No. 031459942 CT/GD Mukesh Kumar of C/91 Bn, CRPF, while functioning as Constable/GD has committed acts of misconduct/neglect of duty in the discharge of his duty in capacity as a member for the Force under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 in that he is a habitual offender and deliberately deserted from Line/overstayed from leave unauthorizedly in the past for which he was also awarded punishments.” 2.2. That after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, all the charges levelled against the original writ-petitioner were held to be proved. After giving fullest opportunity to the original writ-petitioner and after having found all the charges proved, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal by holding that the writ-petitioner is habitual to remain on unauthorized leave. The order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the original writ petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition before the learned Single Judge. By a detailed judgment and order the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Shri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original writ-petitioner has vehemently submitted that while passing the order of removal, earlier absenteeism of the original writ-petitioner ought not to have been considered as all those were pardoned. It is submitted that for remaining unauthorized absent for 51 days for which the departmental inquiry was initiated, the order of removal can be said to be too harsh and disproportionate to the charges and the misconduct held to be proved. 3.1. It is submitted that for remaining unauthorized absent for 51 days for which the departmental inquiry was initiated, the order of removal can be said to be too harsh and disproportionate to the charges and the misconduct held to be proved. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original writ-petitioner that even there was a justification for remaining absent for the period for which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and even the medical certificate was produced. Making the aforesaid submission, it is requested to admit/allow the present appeal. 4. Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4.1. It is further submitted by Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents that as such during the 9 years of service the original writ-petitioner remained absent for 17 times and 5 times he was punished. It is submitted that thereafter as such it was found that again he remained unauthorized absent for 51 days and despite giving instructions to report for duties, he did not report for duty. It is submitted that after considering the explanation and after following due process as required thereafter he has been removed from service. It is submitted that the original writ-petitioner was serving in the disciplined Force and, therefore, such a gross misconduct of remaining unauthorized absent time and again cannot be tolerated. It is submitted that therefore, the original writ-petitioner was rightly removed and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the materials on record and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the departmental proceedings the original writ-petitioner is held to have committed the misconduct and all the charges referred to hereinabove are held to be proved. He remained unauthorized absent for 51 days for which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. His explanation that he was suffering from cold has not been accepted as the same was not found to be satisfactory. He remained unauthorized absent for 51 days for which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. His explanation that he was suffering from cold has not been accepted as the same was not found to be satisfactory. It is required to be noted that during 9 years of service he has remained unauthorized absent for 17 times out of which he has been punished 5 times. It is required to be noted that despite the notices and the instructions and the orders passed by the higher authorities the original writ-petitioner did not report for duties and thereafter the departmental proceedings were initiated. It is also required to be noted that the original writ-petitioner was as such serving in the disciplined Force and such type of gross misconduct of remaining unauthorized absent time and again cannot be tolerated. Under the circumstances, after holding Disciplinary Inquiry and after giving fullest opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority rightly removed/dismissed the original writ-petitioner which is rightly confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.