Judgement : 1. Heard Sri Ambrish Chatterji, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vijay Gautam, Advocate, for petitioner; and, learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.K. Rai, Advocate, for respondents. 2. Petitioner, Mohammad Akaram, a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “CRPF”) has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.09.2004 passed by Commandant, 72 Battalion, CRPF, Old Court, Chass Bokaro (Jharkhand) imposing punishment of dismissal from service and declaring his period of absconding from 17.10.2003 to 05.03.2004 as “Dies Non”. Petitioner’s appeal has also been rejected by Deputy Inspector General, CRPF vide order dated 14.04.2005 and Revision has been rejected by Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Lucknow vide order dated 31.10.2005 and these two orders are also under challenge. Petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. 3. Facts in brief, giving rise to present writ petition, are that petitioner was selected and appointed in CRPF as Constable (G.D.) where he joined on 27.04.2000 at Group Center, CRPF, Lucknow. In the year 2002, when he was posted at Head Quarter 72 Battalion, CRPF, Kumlong, West Tripura, he remained absent from duty in August, 2002, unauthorizedly, hence awarded 30 days confinement of Quarter Guard. On 29.07.2003, he went under treatment at Base Hospital-3, CRPF and fitness certificate was issued on 07.08.2003 with effect from 08.08.2003 duly signed by Chief Medical Officer. 4. On 29.07.2003, he went under treatment at Base Hospital-3, CRPF and fitness certificate was issued on 07.08.2003 with effect from 08.08.2003 duly signed by Chief Medical Officer. 4. A charge-sheet dated 12.02.2004 was served upon petitioner containing three charges as under:- ^^en&1 ;g fd cy la[;k 005180051 flŒ@thMh eksŒ vdje] Mh@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcy esa flikgh@thMh dh gSfl;r ls dk;Zjr jgrs gq, ,d mipkj dk dk;Z fd;k gSA ftlesa mldks bykt ds laca/k esa csl vLirky&3] xzqi dsUæ dsŒfjŒiqŒcy] xqokgkVh Hkstk x;k Fkk ijUrq fnukad 17-10-2003 ¼iwokZŒ½ dks fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vuqefr ds vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s fcuk dSEi ls Hkkx x;k rFkk vHkh rd mlus okil viuh M~;wVh ij fjiksVZ ugha fd;k tks fd dsŒfjŒiqŒcy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11¼1½ ds rgr ,d n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k gSA en&2 ;g fd cy la[;k 005180051 flŒ@thMh eksŒ vdje] Mh@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcy esa lnL; gS] tks fd dSEi ls HkxksMk gksus dk vkfn gS dkfeZd o"kZ 2002 ds nkSjku fnukad 06-08-2002 ¼iwokZŒ½ dks eqŒdŒ@72 cVkŒ deykax] if'pe f=iqjk ¼f=iqjk½ ls HkxksMk gksdj viuh M~;wVh ds Áfr dnkockj@mis{kk dk O;ogkj fd;k Fkk ,oa mDr dkfeZd us iqu% dSEi ls HkxksMk gksdj iqu% vius M~;wVh ds Áfr mis{kk dk O;ogkj fd;k gS] tks fd dsŒfjŒiqŒcy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11¼1½ ds rgr ,d n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k gSA en&3 ;g fd mDr cy la[;k 005180051 flŒ@thMh eksŒ vdje] Mh@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcy esa flikgh@thMh dh gSfl;r ls dk;Zjr jgrs gq, dSEi ls Hkkx x;k ftl ij dEiuh dek.Mj&Mh@72 cVkŒ us vius i= la[;k ,lŒ nks&1@03 Mh@72 cVkŒ fnukad 17-11-2003 ds rgr viuh M~;wVh ij vfr'kh?kz mifLFkr gksus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k] ftldk mlus u rks dksbZ mRrj fn;k u rks og M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gqvkA bl Ádkj mlus l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk dk dk;Z fd;k gS tks dsŒfjŒiqŒcy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11¼1½ ds rgr ,d n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k gSA^^ (Item 1) That Force No. 005180051 Sepoy/GD Mohd. Akaram, while working as sepoy/GD in D/72 battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force, has committed an act of delinquency; wherein he was sent for treatment to Base Hospital-3, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, but on 17.10.2018 (forenoon), he, without getting his leave sanctioned and permission granted by any competent authority, fled off the camp, and has not reported back for his duties as yet, which is an offence punishable under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. (Item 2) That Force No. 005180051 Sepoy/GD Mohd. Akaram, is a part of D/72 Battalion, CRPF, and is habitual of deserting the camp. By deserting his Mu.Ka./72 Battalion Kamlang, West Tripura, Tripura, on 06.08.2002 (forenoon) in 2002, the personnel had shown delinquency/negligence towards his duties; and the aforesaid personnel, deserting the camp again, has shown delinquency/negligence towards his duties, which is an offence punishable u/s 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. (Item 3) That the aforesaid force no. 005180051 Sepoy/GD Mohd. Akaram, while working as sepoy/GD in D/72 Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force, had deserted the camp, whereupon Company Commander, D/72 battalion, through his letter no. S.II-1/03 D/72 battalion dated 17.11.2003, commanded him to report for his duties at the earliest, to which he neither gave any reply nor reported back for duties. In this way, he neglected the orders given by the competent authority, which is an offence punishable u/s 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949.” (English Translation by Court) 5. Documentary and oral evidences in support of charges referred to in charge-sheet read as under: Documentary Evidences: ^^1- ,MT;wVsM@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcy ds csrkj la[;k MhŒ ikap&1@03 miŒfuŒ ¼ÁKk½ fnukad 17-10-2003 2- Mh@72 cVkŒ ds csrkj la[;k MhŒ ikap 1@03] fnukad 19-10-2003 3- Mh@72 cVkŒ ds i= la[;k ,yŒnksŒ 1@03-72 MhŒ fnukad 17-11-2003 4- ,MT;wVsaV@72 cVkŒ ds f'kdk;r i= la[;k ,eŒikap&1@03 mŒfuŒ ¼ÁKk½ fnukad 21-10-2003 5- bl dk;kZy; ds fxjrkjh okjaV la[;k MCY;wŒnks&14@03@72 LFkkŒ nks fnukad 23-10-2003 6- bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k la[;k vkbZŒ,lŒ 34@03-72 LFkkŒ nks fnukad 26-12-2003 7- tkap vf/kdkjh dksbZ nLrkostksa dh vko';drk gks rksA** “1. Wireless no. D. V-1/03 Sub-Inspector (Intelligence) of Adjutant/72 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force. 2. Wireless no. D. V-1/03 dated 19.10.2003 of D/72 Battalion. 3. Letter no. L.II-1/03.72D dated 17.11.2003 of D/72 Battalion. 4. Complaint letter no. M.V-1/03 Sub-Inspector (Intelligence) dated 21.10.2003 of Adjutant/72 Battalion. 5. The arrest warrant issued by this office bearing no. W II-14/03/72 Stha.II dated 23.10.2003. 6. The order of this office bearing no. I.S. 34/03.72 Stha.II dated 26.12.2003. 7. Any document if required by the inquiry officer.” (English Translation by Court) Oral Evidences: ^^1- cy la[;k 005021246 flŒthMh jes'k dqekj Hkkjrh] ,Q@7 cVkŒ mDr dkfeZd lgk;d@nkj gSA 2- dEiuh dek.Mj&Mh@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcyA 3- lhŒ,pŒ,eŒMhŒ@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcyA 4- lhŒD;wŒ,eŒ,pŒ@Mh@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcyA 5- dEiuh@fyfid&Mh@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcyA 6- chŒ,pŒ,eŒ@72 cVkŒ dsŒfjŒiqŒcyA 7- tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk dksbZ vkSj xokg dh vko';drk gks rksA** “1. Constable G.D. Ramesh Kumar Bharti 005021246 is assistant/?? in F/7 Battalion. 2. Company Commander-D/72 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force. 3. C.H.M.D./72 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force. 4. C.Q.M.H./D/72 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force. 5. Company/Clerk-D/72 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force. 6. B.H.M./72 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force. 7. Any other witness, if required by the inquiry officer.” (English Translation by Court) 6. Petitioner in his reply dated 12.06.2004 stated that he fell ill and therefore went to his home on 17.10.2003; he suffered Gastric problem for which he went under treatment of a private Doctor from 20.10.2003 to 10.02.2004; obtained a medical certificate and submitted along with his reply. 7. Before Inquiry Officer when it was enquired as to when petitioner was sent for treatment to Government Hospital, Gauhati, whether he underwent any treatment or not thereat, petitioner gave reply as under: ^^eSa fnukad 17-10-2003 dks yxHkx 06-30 cts flikgh jes'k dqekj Hkkjrh ¼lsoknkj vVsUMsUV½ ds lkFk igqapkA eSaus ogka ij viuk bZykt ugha djok;k vkSj viuh ethZ ls fdlh dks fcuk lwfpr fd;s ?kj ds fy;s HkxksM+k gks x;kA** “On 17.10.2003 at around 6:30 o’clock, I reached with Constable Ramesh Kumar Bharti (Sewadar Attendant). I did not avail any treatment over there, and deserted for home at my own whim without informing anybody.” (English Translation by Court) 8. He also admitted receipt of various communications from his unit for rejoining duties and also that he did not inform any authority about his absconding from duty. In a query made as to why he did not get his treatment at CRPF Hospital at Lucknow, he stated that he was aware that there is an official Hospital of CRPF at Lucknow but he underwent treatment with a private Doctor as Outdoor Patient. He also admitted that he did not give any intimation about such treatment to his Battalion. He admitted that after absconding from duty on 17.10.2003, he submitted joining on 05.03.2004. Before Inquiry Officer petitioner also submitted a letter that he has committed mistake and he admits his guilt. The said admission made by petitioner before Commandant is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and this admission is also stated in para-15 of Writ Petition. Inquiry Officer completed oral inquiry and submitted reply holding charges proved. Thereafter the order of punishment was passed by Commandant (Disciplinary Authority) and petitioner’s appeal has been rejected by appellant authority. 9. The said admission made by petitioner before Commandant is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and this admission is also stated in para-15 of Writ Petition. Inquiry Officer completed oral inquiry and submitted reply holding charges proved. Thereafter the order of punishment was passed by Commandant (Disciplinary Authority) and petitioner’s appeal has been rejected by appellant authority. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was ill and, therefore, could not discharge his duties, hence punishment imposed is wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and is liable to be set aside. 10. CRPF is a Paramilitary Force where discipline is one of the most important aspect. Petitioner was sent for treatment along with another Constable to Gauhati Hospital but he absconded (ran away) on 17.10.2003 and remained unauthorizedly absent till 05.03.2004. He claimed to have undergone treatment with a private Doctor knowing it well that at Lucknow there was a CRPF Hospital where his treatment would have been free by competent Medical Officers but without giving any reason he chose not to go for such treatment which shows that alleged illness of petitioner was nothing but a mere pretext to justify his unauthorized absence. Moreover, gastric trouble is not such a disease which would justify more than four months unauthorized absence, and, that too, without any information to competent authorities. Petitioner admitted his guilt and in his own statement admitted that he did not inform higher authorities. In these circumstances, I do not find any fault on the part of authorities concerned in holding petitioner guilty of charges. 11. When this Court comes to the question of rationality of punishment, looking to the nature of employment of petitioner and paramount importance of maintenance of discipline in uniform force, I find it difficult to hold that punishment can be said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against petitioner. 12. Moreover, in the matter of award of punishment, the scope of judicial review in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India is extremely narrow and restricted. Unless it could be shown that punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee is such as to shock the concious of the Court or that no person of ordinary prudence would come to such conclusion and it is ex facia arbitrary, the Court will not interfere. 13. Unless it could be shown that punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee is such as to shock the concious of the Court or that no person of ordinary prudence would come to such conclusion and it is ex facia arbitrary, the Court will not interfere. 13. In Ranjit Thakur Vs Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 611 , Court held: “judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the “decision making process”. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the competent authority. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. If one can say that punishment imposed is wholly irrational and perverse it is a recognised ground of judicial review.” (emphasis added) 14. This judgment was explained in Union of India Vs R.K. Sharma, 2001 (9) SCC 492 , and Court said: “In Ranjit Thakur, the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh and disproportionate and it was on such gross facts that this Court had held that the punishment was so strikingly disproportionate that it called for interference; and the said observations in Ranjit Thakur are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held that only in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and merely on compassionate grounds, courts should not interfere.” (emphasis added) 15. Both the aforesaid judgments have been noticed and reiterated in Union of India and others Vs Bodupalli Gopalaswami (2011) 13 SCC 553 . 16. It is well settled that the Courts in exercise of power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment and shall be very slow unless it is found to be shocking to its conscience. (State of U.P. Vs. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava and others 2006 (3) SCC 276 ; Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2006 (1) SCC 430 ). 17. In State of Gujarat Vs. (State of U.P. Vs. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava and others 2006 (3) SCC 276 ; Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2006 (1) SCC 430 ). 17. In State of Gujarat Vs. Anand Acharya alias Bharat Kumar Sadhu (2007) 9 SCC 310 Court has held: “The well settled proposition of law that a court sitting in judicial review against quantum of punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings will not normally substitute its own conclusion of penalty is not in dispute. However, in the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the concious of the court, then the court appropriately mould the relief either by directing the disciplinary/appropriate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation it may make exception in rare cases and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 18. In Charanjit Lamba Vs. Commanding Officer, Southern Command and others AIR 2010 SC 2462 , Court held: “... the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is something that rests primarily with the disciplinary authority. The jurisdiction of a Writ Court or the Administrative Tribunal for that matter is limited to finding out whether the punishment is so outrageously disproportionate as to be suggestive of lack of good faith. What is clear is that while judicially reviewing an order of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee the Writ Court would not assume the role of an appellate authority. It would not impose a lesser punishment merely because it considers the same to be more reasonable that what the disciplinary authority has imposed. It is only in cases where the punishment is so disproportionate to the gravity of charge that no reasonable person placed in the position of the disciplinary authority could have imposed such a punishment that a Writ Court may step in to interfere with the same.” 19. Referring to Charanjit Lamba Vs. Commanding Officer, Southern Command and others (supra) in Maharashtra Land Development Corporation and Corporation and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2011 (15) SCC 616 it was held that constitutional requirement for judging the question of reasonableness and fairness on the part of the statutory authority must be considered having regard to the factual matrix obtaining in each case. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be considered keeping in view the doctrine of flexibility. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be considered keeping in view the doctrine of flexibility. Before an action is struck down, the Court must be satisfied that a case has been made out for exercise of power of judicial review. 20. In Prem Nath Bali Vs Registrar, High Court of Delhi and others, AIR 2016 SC 101 , question arose, ‘whether punishment of compulsory retirement was excessive, unjust and does not commensurate with the charge proved against delinquent employee. Court said: “Once the charges leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the punishment. Such power is exercised when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in contravention of the Rules.” (emphasis added) 21. The above observations are reiterated in Commissioner of Police and others Vs Sat Narayan Kaushik, AIR 2016 SC 1464 . In the matter of punishment it is always relevant, to consider the position, delinquent employee was holding, what was nature of his duties, degree of trust, integrity etc. maintained by such person and other relevant factors. 22. In the matter of a member of disciplined force, who left campus without prior permission, proceeded to the market, consumed liquor and quarreled with the civilians, it was held that punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive. maintained by such person and other relevant factors. 22. In the matter of a member of disciplined force, who left campus without prior permission, proceeded to the market, consumed liquor and quarreled with the civilians, it was held that punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive. In Union of India and others Vs Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71 , Court held: “when a member of the disciplined force deviates to such an extent from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner which is not conceived of, it was difficult to hold that the punishment of dismissal as was imposed was disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience.” 23. In the case in hand the petitioner being a member of Paramilitary Force having shown a reckless attitude of abandoning duty without producing any sufficient and reliable material to justify his absence for valid reasons, he is guilty of serious lapse. The authorities’ satisfaction for believing the evidence being primary, they are well competent to analyze various facts and circumstances. In the instance case the authorities after analyzing various facts and circumstances have found petitioner’s explanation unsatisfactory. I, therefore, do not find any reasons to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution. 24. No other point has been argued. 25. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.