JUDGMENT : 1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 26.01.2008 by virtue of which the petitioner has been removed from the service by the respondent No. 5 and also for quashing the order dated 04.06.2008 whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.01.2008 has been dismissed by the respondent No. 4. The prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement and to allow him to resume the duties on the post of Constable. 2) It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the CRPF in the year 1988 and has even been awarded with the President’s Police Medal for Gallantry in the year 2006. The petitioner was granted casual leave w.e.f. 24.07.2006 to 09.08.2006 with permission to avail holidays falling on 23.07.2006, 30.07.2006 and 06.08.2006 on account of Sundays and journey period w.e.f. 06.08.2006 to 12.08.2006. The petitioner was to report back on duty on 13.08.2006 but due to demise of his father and his subsequent illness, he could not report back till 08.01.2007. The petitioner was again granted 15 days earned leave w.e.f. 24.08.2007 to 15.09.2007. The petitioner was to report back on 16.09.2007 but he could not join back because of illness of his son as he had a hole in his heart and there was none else in the family to look after his son. 3) The order dated 26.01.2008 has been impugned by the petitioner on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner and that the enquiry has been conducted by the respondents in utter disregard to the provisions contained in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 & Rule 27 of CRPF Rules and for solitary incident, the petitioner has been punished with major penalty of removal from the service. It is also urged by the petitioner that the respondent No.4 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.01.2008 without hearing the petitioner and without appreciating the service record of the petitioner. It is also urged by the petitioner that the respondent No.4 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.01.2008 without hearing the petitioner and without appreciating the service record of the petitioner. 4) The respondents have objected to the petition by raising a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on account of availability of the equally efficacious remedy of revision available to the petitioner and have further averred that the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct as a member of Force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, as he overstayed from the sanctioned leave w.e.f. 13.08.2006 (FN) to 08.01.2007 and reported on duty on 08.01.2007 at 20.30 hrs. i.e. overstayed for 149 days without prior permission/sanction from the competent authority. It is also stated that while the petitioner was overstaying the leave, he was directed to report immediately in Unit HQ for receiving the Medal for Gallantry at GC, New Delhi on 19.10.2006 but he did not report and rather on 25.10.2006, the petitioner on his own reached 73 Bn CRPF, Delhi to receive the Medal and after receiving the Medal, left the location on 01.11.2006 without informing anybody and did not report for duty. Accordingly, the Memorandum of the Charge was served upon the petitioner with specific direction to submit written representation/statement of his defence within ten days. As the petitioner did not submit his reply within ten days, it was considered necessary to proceed further with the departmental enquiry. Sh. Harvinder Singh, Dy. Commandant, 109 Bn. CRPF was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 23.04.2007. During preliminary hearing, the petitioner pleaded guilty to the Article of charge-1 framed against him. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses in presence of the petitioner and despite affording opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses to the petitioner, he did not choose to cross-examine the witnesses. 5) After recording the statements of the witnesses, 15 days’ time was granted to the petitioner on 28.06.2007, to submit his written statement in defence, if any, by 12.07.2007. The petitioner did not produce any witness in his defence but during the preliminary hearing, the petitioner stated that he did not report for duty on due date because of illness and subsequent demise of his father. The petitioner did not produce any witness in his defence but during the preliminary hearing, the petitioner stated that he did not report for duty on due date because of illness and subsequent demise of his father. He produced two documents i.e. the death certificate of his father and copy of the certificate dated 28.11.2005 in respect of award of President’s Police Medal for Gallantry. The Enquiry Officer found the Article -1 fully proved against the petitioner. Before passing any final order on the departmental enquiry proceedings, a copy of the enquiry report was sought to be served upon the petitioner through OC (C/109 Bn) vide No. P VIII-2/2007 109 EC II dated 01.09.2007 but the same could not be handed over to the petitioner as he had again proceeded on 15 days leave from 24.08.2007 to 15.09.2007. He was to report back on duty on 16.09.2007 but he again did not report back and overstayed the leave w.e.f. 16.09.2007. As the petitioner did not report back to his duty, the petitioner was directed by his OC C/109 Bn CRPF to report back vide letters dated 26.09.2007 and 8.10.2007 but the petitioner neither responded nor reported back on duty. A copy of the Enquiry report was also dispatched at his home address through registered post with A.D on 31.10.2007 to submit his representation or submissions in his defence within 15 days of the receipt of the enquiry report but the petitioner again did not respond. Thereafter, the Unit approached ADGP, G C Bantalab and the Commandant 91 Bn CRPF with a request to ask the petitioner, if any help was required from the Unit to mitigate his domestic problem and to ensure the presence of the petitioner to present his case. Finally, the copy of the enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner personally on 23.12.2007 but he neither submitted any representation nor made any correspondence intimating his problem, if any. 6) In the response filed by the respondents, the details of durations of earlier unauthorized absence of the petitioner have been mentioned. After finding the petitioner as habitual offender of overstaying the leave, vide order dated 26.01.2008, the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service. The respondents have also given the details of the leaves availed by the petitioner. 6) In the response filed by the respondents, the details of durations of earlier unauthorized absence of the petitioner have been mentioned. After finding the petitioner as habitual offender of overstaying the leave, vide order dated 26.01.2008, the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service. The respondents have also given the details of the leaves availed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 26.01.2008 but the same was dismissed by the respondent No.4 being devoid of merits as the petitioner did not bring out any extenuating facts or material evidence, warranting interference by the respondent No.4 . It is also averred that the purpose of preliminary enquiry is to ascertain prima facie truth in the allegations. Since act of overstaying the leave on the part of the petitioner was apparent, the disciplinary authority did not feel it essential to conduct preliminary enquiry. 7) Ms. Surinder Kour, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents have not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in the CRPF Rules and there were valid reasons for the petitioner for not reporting back on duty on the prescribed day. The petitioner had brought to the notice of the respondents the circumstances forcing the petitioner to overstay the leave but the respondents have not at all considered the same. It is also urged by the learned Senior Counsel that for one solitary act, the petitioner has been handed over the major penalty/punishment which is disproportionate to the alleged act of mis-conduct imputed to the petitioner. 8) Mr. Prem Sadotra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules and the petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but he did not choose to cross-examine and also did not respond to the enquiry report which was personally served upon the petitioner on 23.12.2007. He also argued that the petitioner was no doubt awarded Gallantry Medal but that would not mean that the petitioner could act/behave in an indisciplined manner and disobey the lawful orders. 9) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the departmental proceedings. 10) The first issue raised by the petitioner is that the respondents have not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 27 of CRPF Rules. 9) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the departmental proceedings. 10) The first issue raised by the petitioner is that the respondents have not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 27 of CRPF Rules. In order to appreciate this contention raised by the petitioner, this Court deems it proper to extract Rule 27(c) of CRPF Rules which is as under: 27 c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows:- (1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge, which should be as precise as possible. The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry. (2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral; (i) it shall be direct; (ii) it shall be recorded by the Officer conducting the enquiry himself in the presence of the accused; (iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses. (3) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits. (4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. If the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads "Not guilty", he shall be required to file a written statement, and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than a fortnight, as the officer conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed. (5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed. (5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the enquiry considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the accused wants to produce in his defence is not material to the issues involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. (6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings, to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders, where he has power to do so. 11) The statement of Article of charge framed against the petitioner reads as under: Article-I That the said No.889910155 Ct./GD Joginder Pal of 109 Bn. CRPF 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 overstated from sanctioned the leave w.e.f. 13/80/06 (FN) to 08/01/2007 and reported duty on 08/01/2007 at 20:30 hours i.e. after overstaying by 149 days without prior permission/sanction by the competent authority. He was sanctioned 15 days C/L w.e.f. 24/07/06 to 09/08/06 with the permission to avail on 23/07/06, 30/7/06, 06/8/06 being Saturday and J/P w.e.f. 10/8/06 to 12/8/06 and overstaying from sanctioned leave w.e.f. 13/8/06 (FN) which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force. 12) The charge mentioned above was read over to the petitioner and he was provided with a copy of the same on 27.04.2007 and he was also granted 48 hours to reply in writing and submit documents. 12) The charge mentioned above was read over to the petitioner and he was provided with a copy of the same on 27.04.2007 and he was also granted 48 hours to reply in writing and submit documents. The preliminary hearing was conducted on 02.06.2007, wherein the petitioner pleaded guilty and stated that he intended to produce documents. The petitioner submitted in writing on 03.06.2007 that while he was on leave, the father of the petitioner fell ill and subsequently expired, due to which the petitioner could not report back on duty. The petitioner also got mentally disturbed and as such, on 08.01.2007 reported on his own in his Battalion. The petitioner submitted the death certificate of his father and the copy of the certificate of President’s Medal. During enquiry, three witnesses, namely Nageshwar Parsad Singh, Jagdish Kumar and S.V Varik were examined. The petitioner was provided an opportunity to cross examine the above mentioned three witnesses but he did not choose to cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner was provided with the copies of the statements of all these witnesses and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded. In his statement besides repeating the fact of demise of his father while he was on leave, the petitioner also stated that on 11.10.2006 he was intimated about the award of medal and he was also asked to report back on duty immediately but he could not report back on duty as his father had expired. On 25.10.2006, he reported at 73 Bn and on 28.10.2006, he was awarded medal by the President. On 01.11.2006 at 12.30, he went to his home. During the final hearing, he submitted that he was having an issue with his brothers in respect of the land due to which he faced numerous difficulties and on 08.01.2007, he on his own reported in his company. The documentary evidence relied upon by the respondents was duly exhibited during the course of enquiry. 13) The enquiry Officer after examining the statements of the witnesses and the statement of petitioner, arrived at a conclusion that article of charge against the petitioner was fully proved. Initially, the enquiry report could not be served upon the petitioner, as he again availed casual leave for 15 days w.e.f. 24.08.2007 to 15.09.2007. 13) The enquiry Officer after examining the statements of the witnesses and the statement of petitioner, arrived at a conclusion that article of charge against the petitioner was fully proved. Initially, the enquiry report could not be served upon the petitioner, as he again availed casual leave for 15 days w.e.f. 24.08.2007 to 15.09.2007. The enquiry report was sent to the petitioner at his residential address also through registered post on 31.10.2007 with a direction to the petitioner to submit his representations/reply if any in respect of the enquiry report within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter but the petitioner did not respond to the same. Finally, the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner personally on 23.12.2007 and the petitioner in acknowledgement thereof, signed the communication dated 29.11.2007. Still the petitioner did not choose to submit any representation. The Enquiry Officer has also observed that the petitioner neither informed anyone nor reported on duty and even on 01.11.2006 without informing anybody went to his home after receiving the President’s medal and even did not report on duty till 08.01.2007. The enquiry report and the record was examined by the respondent No. 5 and vide order dated 26.01.2008, the respondent No.5 ordered removal of the petitioner from the service with effect from the date of issuance of the order and his name was struck off from the strength of the Unit w.e.f. 26.01.2008. 14) From a perusal of the record of enquiry, it is evident that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules. The petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of hearing at different stages of the enquiry and it cannot be said that the petitioner has been condemned unheard. From the record, it is evident that the procedure prescribed by Rule 27 of CRPF Rules has been meticulously followed during the course of enquiry. The respondent No. 5 while removing the petitioner from the service has also considered the past service of the record of the petitioner and has observed that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he, instead of improving himself, is committing the act of indiscipline again and again. The respondents have also considered the reason of the absence of the petitioner while passing the order impugned. The respondents have also considered the reason of the absence of the petitioner while passing the order impugned. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted by the respondents in utter disregard of the CRPF Rules. 15) The second issue raised by the petitioner is that for solitary act of alleged misconduct imputed to the petitioner, the petitioner has been punished with major penalty which is disproportionate to the alleged act of misconduct. In “Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. SSB”, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 478, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “22. On the judicial review and interference of the courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality, few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to: i) In the case of Om Kumar (supra), this Court, after considering the Wednesbury principles and the doctrine of proportionality, has observed and held that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-known principles known as „Wednesbury principles’. In the Wednesbury case, [1948] 1 K.B. 223, it was observed that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. Lord Greene further said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely, the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered, or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. ii) In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), in paragraph 18, this Court observed and held as under: “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” iii) In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), in paragraph 19, it is observed and held as under: “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” (emphasis added) 16) As already mentioned above, the respondent No. 5 while issuing the order impugned has taken into consideration the past service record of the petitioner and has observed that the petitioner was sanctioned leave 3 times during the last 2 years but instead of reporting on due dates, he overstayed the leave each and every time. No doubt, the period of overstaying the leave was regularized but it shows that the petitioner has not been a disciplined member of the CRPF. The respondent No.5 in his order dated 26.01.2008 has observed that the petitioner was sanctioned 15 days casual leave with effect from 24.08.2007 to 12.09.2007 and was to report back on duty on 15.09.2007 but he did not report back and absented himself without any intimation of his whereabouts and proper permission of the competent authority. It needs to be noted that with great difficulty the respondents were able to serve the copy of enquiry report upon the petitioner on 23.12.2007 and even till order dated 26.01.2008, the petitioner did not report back. It reflects the conduct of the petitioner, who is not a fit person to be retained in CRPF. The CRPF is a disciplined Force and the continuance of such person in the Force would not only have adverse impact on the working of the CRPF but would also encourage indiscipline in the Force. The petitioner time and again has proved to be an indisciplined member of the Force and the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be termed as disproportionate to the act of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner also stands rejected. 17) Lastly, it was also urged that the Appellate Authority has not rightly considered the service record of the petitioner while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner also stands rejected. 17) Lastly, it was also urged that the Appellate Authority has not rightly considered the service record of the petitioner while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner too deserves to be rejected as the respondent No. 4 has considered not only the past service record of the petitioner but also the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him. The respondent No. 4 has also come to the similar conclusion as that of respondent No. 5 that the petitioner has overstayed the leaves granted to him time and again and has proved himself to be of incorrigible nature and also did not avail the opportunities provided to him to mend himself. No fault can be found with the order dated 04.06.2008 passed by the respondent No. 4, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 18) This Court after meticulously considering the record has come to the conclusion that there is neither any infraction of procedure while conducting enquiry and imposing punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner nor the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct imputed to the petitioner, which may warrant interference by this Court. It is a settled law that the power of judicial review in respect of disciplinary proceedings is limited only to the extent of evaluation of decision making process to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. It would be apt to take note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 and the same are extracted as under: “24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.” (emphasis added) 19) The petitioner no doubt was awarded a medal for gallantry but it does not mean that he can indulge in indiscipline and thereafter claim that he has performed his duties diligently with utmost bravery for which he was awarded President’s medal, so he deserved differential treatment. The petitioner being the awardee of the coveted medal for gallantry was expected to be an Icon of discipline as well, setting example for the other members of the force but instead, the petitioner became careless and indulged in acts of indiscipline repeatedly. The petitioner cannot hide his misconduct under the camouflage of the gallantry medal awarded to him. 20) In view of what has been said and discussed above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. 21) Record be returned to the learned Counsel for the respondents forthwith.