JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Sashastra Seema Bal ("SSB" for short) during the year 1975. On 16-07-1995 i.e. after almost 20 years of service, the petitioner left his posting at Group Centre Headquarters/lines, Suderbani at 0755 hours without prior permission from the competent authority. Even after being served with two notices for resumption of his duties by the Group Centre SSB, Sunderbani, the petitioner did not resume his duties. When the notices issued to the petitioner for resumption of duty did not receive any response from the petitioner, a Court of Inquiry was ordered on 15-09-1995 to find out the circumstances under which the petitioner had, without any permission or authority, abandoned his services from Group Centre Headquarters, Sunderbani. On the basis of the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry, the Competent Authority declared the petitioner a deserter with effect from 16-07-1995 vide Order No. 9310-14 dated 26-09-1995. 2. Keeping in view the findings of the Court of Inquiry and regard been had to the service record of the petitioner, the petitioner was also found to be a habitual offender having committed misconduct in as many as 21 times in the past. Accordingly, the Departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. The statement of Articles of Charge and statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour in support of the Articles of charge along with the list of documents and prosecution witnesses proposed to be examined, were served upon the petitioner vide memo 9954 dated 18-10-1995. The Departmental Enquiry was entrusted to Shri J.L. Chakraborty, Deputy Commandant, who, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report to the Commandant. 3. From the report it was found that the charges framed against the petitioner were duly substantiated and proved. Accordingly, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner with proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to make representation, if any, on the proposed penalty for his misconduct and misbehavior. The petitioner submitted his representation pointing out therein that the Enquiry officer had ignored the medical certificates submitted by him to justify his absence from duty. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to make representation, if any, on the proposed penalty for his misconduct and misbehavior. The petitioner submitted his representation pointing out therein that the Enquiry officer had ignored the medical certificates submitted by him to justify his absence from duty. On consideration of all relevant material and the representation submitted by the petitioner against the notice of proposed penalty, it was thus found that petitioner had absconded from duty without proper permission and authority and, therefore, was guilty of committing misconduct unbecoming of a member of the disciplined force. The Commandant, thus reached a conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and, consequently, awarded him a punishment of dismissal form service with effect from 09-12-1995. 4. Feeing aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the impugned order of removal dated 09-12-1995 in SWP No. 294/1999 titled Om Parkash v. Union of India and Ors. The writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20-07-2001. This Court held both the charges framed against the petitioner proved during enquiry and left it open to the petitioner to avail his right of appeal against his order of removal before the Competent Authority. The Court thus directed that the writ petition be treated as an appeal and dealt with by the Appellate Authority. 5. In compliance with the order of this Court, the Divisional Organizer, SSB J&K Division, Jammu, being the appellate authority, disposed of the representation of the petitioner as an appeal and found the same devoid of any merit. The appellate authority thus rejected the appeal and up-held the order of removal. This was done by the appellate authority vide its order dated 01-10-2001. The order of the appellate authority dated 01-10-2001 is assailed in the instant petition filed only in the year 2005. 6. The impugned order of removal dated 01-10-2001 passed by the Appellate Authority as also order of removal dated 09-12-1995 issued by the Commandant, Group Centre SSB, Sunderbani, are challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds. It is argued by Ms. 6. The impugned order of removal dated 01-10-2001 passed by the Appellate Authority as also order of removal dated 09-12-1995 issued by the Commandant, Group Centre SSB, Sunderbani, are challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds. It is argued by Ms. Surinder Kour, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the Appellate Authority did not consider the appeal filed by the petitioner pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 20-07-2001 in correct perspective, in that, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner without disclosing any reasons or justification for such rejection. Learned senior counsel argues that the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner was in violation of the procedure laid down in Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, in that, the petitioner was not offered a fair opportunity to defend his case. The medical certificates produced by the petitioner during the course of inquiry were brushed aside without giving any reason. The appellate authority failed to appreciate that the petitioner was prevented to resume his duties due to the reasons beyond his control and, therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have taken a compassionate view in the matter. 7. Per contra, Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, submits that both the charges framed against the petitioner were fully substantiated and proved during the enquiry and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority had no option but to impose a major penalty upon the petitioner. He submits that, not only the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to participate in the enquiry and lead his defence, but he was also put on show cause notice of proposed penalty and given another opportunity to come up with his defence, if any. After the disposal of the writ petition and in compliance to the directions issued, the Appellate Authority too considered the matter again but did not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner. This is how the appeal was rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 01-10-2001. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of SWP No. 294/1997 to throw challenge to the impugned order dated 09-12-1995 whereby the services of the petitioner had been brought to an end. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of SWP No. 294/1997 to throw challenge to the impugned order dated 09-12-1995 whereby the services of the petitioner had been brought to an end. The impugned order of removal from service dated 09-12-1995 was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds, which the petitioner has again taken in the petition on hand. This Court in its judgment dated 20-07-2001 has discussed all the grounds of challenge urged on behalf of the petitioner one by one and found no substance in any of them. At this stage it is pertinent to take note that in the Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was served with two Articles of Charge, which, for facility of reference are set out below:- “ARTICLE-I That No. 7578313 Const/GD Om Parkash of Group Centre SSB Sunderbani while functioning as Const/GD committed an offence of misconduct and misbehavior under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act 1949 and Rule 1955, in that he absconded himself from Group Centre Hqrs/Lines Sodhra, Sunderbani at 0755 hours on 16.7.95 without any intimation or prior permission of the Competent authority and is till absconding. He has been declared deserter vide G.C. office Order No. PF/7578313/OP/GCS/CRC/9310-14 dated 26.9.95. The act of his deserting from Group Centre SSB Sunderbani/lines is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force. ARTICLE-II That No. 7578313 Const/GD Om Parkash of Group Centre SSB Sunderbani while functioning in the capacity as Const/GD committed misconduct and misbehavior as many as 21 times repeatedly in that he absconded/ illegally absented for 13 times, consumed liquor while on duty 3 times, left/quitted Hqrs/place of his duty without proper permission 2 times, threatened to kill/ assault his senior one time and lost his Identity Card a Confidential document due to his carelessness and committed misconduct none time each. For all the 21 times he has been awarded minor punishments with a view to offer him opportunities to improve. But no improvement has been found. For all the 21 times he has been awarded minor punishments with a view to offer him opportunities to improve. But no improvement has been found. The repeated misconduct and misbehavior of No. 7578313 Const/GD Om Parkash of Group Centre SSB Sunderbani is due to his being habitual offender and negligent towards his duties showing disinterest, remissness, unfaithfulness, untrustworthiness and being subversive to discipline which is unsafe for the Government to retain him in service as he has repeatedly committed cognizable offences under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 and Rule 1955.” 9. Both the charges were held proved by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer and other relevant material on record and after serving a notice of the proposed punishment, the petitioner was handed down the punishment of "removal from service". Whether the enquiry was conducted in consonance with Rule 27 and whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to participate in and defend the enquiry, have been elaborately considered by this Court in the judgment dated 20-07-2001 passed in SWP No. 294/1997. 10. Insofar as the First charge (I) is concerned, the Court has observed thus:- “With regard to the first charge the plea of the petitioner was that he was ill. This was not found to be substantiated. The reasoning given was that there is an arrangement with the respondent-authorities where a sick person can be treated. He having not used the official facilities available to him it was concluded that what is being pleaded by him is not correct. It was in these circumstances that the enquiry officer held against him.” 11. Similarly, in response to the Second charge (II), the observations of this Court are as under:- “So far as Annexure P1 is concerned, i.e. the medical certificate, it is not dated. The signatures of the person whose signatures were supposed to be verified is not there on Annexure P1. Prescription dated 16.7.1995 recommends rest. This prescription indicates that the Medical officer, who has written this was in the Sub Distt. Hospital Akhnoor. Whether the medicines were purchased from a Chemist or not. Even though it is not function of the Court to comment upon Annexure P1 and P2, however, on a perusal of the same it becomes apparent that the two certificates appear to have been written on the same date. Same pen has been used. Hospital Akhnoor. Whether the medicines were purchased from a Chemist or not. Even though it is not function of the Court to comment upon Annexure P1 and P2, however, on a perusal of the same it becomes apparent that the two certificates appear to have been written on the same date. Same pen has been used. In one certificate date is given, in the second certificate date has not been given. Leaving the matter as it is, I am of the opinion that the view expressed by the respondent-authority that the petitioner was absent without valid reason is a view to which no exception can be taken.” 12. After returning its findings that the two charges were established during the enquiry and that, there was no legal or procedural infirmity in the conduct of the enquiry, the Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to avail of the right to appeal against his order of removal from service. This is how the appeal came up for consideration before the Appellate Authority. 13. Viewed in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the earlier petition, the Appellate Authority could not have taken a view contrary to the one taken by this Court. In these circumstances, the appeal permitted to be filed by this Court before the Appellate Authority could have been examined and considered by the appellate Authority only to the extent of finding out as to whether the petitioner could have been awarded a lesser punishment. I am in agreement with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this Court in terms of its judgment dated 20-07-2001 passed in SWP No. 294/1997 ought not to have returned any findings on the legal validity or otherwise of the enquiry and should have rather allowed the Appellate Authority to apply its mind independently and take appropriate decision in the matter. However, this has not happened in the case. This Court has considered both the charges in the light of the challenge thrown to the enquiry proceedings culminating into issuance of order of removal of the petitioner and has come to the definite conclusion that there was nothing illegal in the matter of conduct of enquiry against the petitioner and that both the charges framed against the petitioner stood amply proved. Viewed thus, this Court is left with no option but to conclude that the right of appeal given to the petitioner was limited only with respect to quantum of punishment. 14. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the impugned order dated 01-10-2001 passed by the Appellate Authority is examined, it is seen that the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind on the aspect of quantum of punishment which the petitioner deserved to be awarded on the basis of the report of the departmental enquiry submitted by the Enquiry Officer, rather the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner being completely influenced by the decision of this Court in SWP No. 294/1997. The Appellate Authority has not applied its independent mind to determine as to whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner was proportionate to the misconduct proved or was the one on higher side and deserved to be reduced. The petitioner has rendered qualifying service of 20 years and this aspect ought to have been kept in mind by the Appellate Authority while considering the possibility of reducing the punishment. 15. Having said that, this Court must leave it to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above and take an appropriate decision as would meet the ends of justice. 16. For all these reasons, this petition is disposed of by providing as under:- (i) That the order dated 01-10-2001 passed by the Divisional Organiser, SSB, J&K Division, Jammu, the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, is quashed. (ii) The Appellate Authority is directed to re-consider the appeal of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above in this judgment and take an appropriate decision having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as would meet the ends of justice. (iii) The appeal of the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date a copy of this judgment is served upon the Appellate Authority. (iv) It is, however, made clear that this Court has not disturbed the findings of fact returned by this Court in its judgment dated 20-07-2001 passed in SWP No. 294/1997. (v) That the enquiry proceedings, as was held by this Court earlier, are in consonance with law and, therefore, deserve no interference.