JUDGMENT : RAJANI DUBEY, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages as the petitioner is not committed mistake and his termination is absolutely illegal and unsustainable. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to submit all the records of the petitioner related with his service career. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to investigate the matter of the petitioner in appropriate agency or authority regarding filing of his certificates well within time and also the non- consideration of those applications and documents by the respondents-authorities. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for joining of the services with immediate effect, so that the respondents may not be permitted to say that for no work the petitioner is not entitled for payment, especially in the circumstances when the petitioner is terminated without following the basic principles of natural justice and provision of the Act, 1968 and Rule, 1969. 10.5 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub Inspector under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). 10.5 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub Inspector under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). In the year 1994 the petitioner took 9 days leave and in between he informed to the Department that due to physical ailment he was unable to resume the services, but the same was not accepted and telegram was also sent to the petitioner at his village address, which was not received by the petitioner, as he was in some other place, thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 06.06.1994, which was replied by the petitioner, thereafter departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 25.02.1996 vide Annexure-P/35, against which the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as W.P. No. 5098/1998 and vide order dated 13/09/2013, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file revision petition before the appropriate authority, thereafter the petitioner moved the revision petition before the competent authority (the respondent No. 4), which has been dismissed, hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Annexure P/1 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The action of the respondents is curt, callous, illegal, arbitrary and nonest in the eyes of law. The Department has not appreciated the fact that the ailment of the petitioner was duly proved by him and Department has followed the provision of the Act,1968 and Rules, 1969, which says that the employee may communicate the Department regarding any exigency/urgency and the suitable documents may be filed after joining of the services, unfortunately in case of the petitioner, no such procedure is followed and petitioner was never sought to file the certificates and contrary to that he was outrightly directed by the authority to join the services forthwith. The order Annexure P/1 is passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is the basic rule of the law and in count alone the order Annexure P/1 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and termination of the petitioner is violative to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1968 and Rules, 1969. He lastly submits that as per the respondents, the petitioner is guilty for overstaying his leave period and the respondent authorities have awarded extreme punishment of dismissal, as such punishment of dismissal is uncalled for. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ved Prakash Gupta vs. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984) 2 SCC 569 and Union of India and Others vs. Giriraj Sharma, (1994) Supp 3 SCC 755. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that by the memo dated 06/06/1994 the petitioner was served a charge sheet alleging that the petitioner was sanctioned leave for the period from 30/04/1994 to 10/05/1994 i.e. total 09 days. The petitioner was to join on 13/05/1994 after availing the permitted leave on 11/5/1994 & 12/05/1994. The petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from service without any sanctioned leave. The petitioner remained absent for 95 days from duty without any sanctioned leave, thus the petitioner committed misconduct, therefore, the petitioner served with a memo of charge sheet along with the list of documents and list of witnesses. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing though the petitioner interrupted the disciplinary proceedings. Many times he asked to change the enquiry officer and repeatedly asked for defence assistant. Almost all the genuine requests of the petitioner were accepted. Even then the petitioner tried to prolong the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the enquiry proceeding completed and after affording ample opportunity of hearing, the final order was passed on 25/02/1996 by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the final order dated 25/02/1996 preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Appellate Authority on 22/05/1997 which was barred by time limitation, even the appellate authority considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner and after considering the grounds of appeal, the same was rejected by a speaking order dated 17/06/1997. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the final order dated 25/02/1996 preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Appellate Authority on 22/05/1997 which was barred by time limitation, even the appellate authority considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner and after considering the grounds of appeal, the same was rejected by a speaking order dated 17/06/1997. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court challenging the appellate order through a writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 5098/1998 without availing the alternative remedy of revision petition before the Department. Ultimately, the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ petition for availing the alternative remedy of revision before the Revisional Authority. Thereafter petitioner filed a revision before the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority after considering the all grounds raised by the petitioner rejected the same by a speaking order dated 27/11/2013. Thus, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He lastly submits that the final order (Annexure-P/1) was passed by the respondent No. 4, Inspector General, CISF, Mumbai (Maharashtra), as such this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Inspector under the CISF. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and by the impugned order dated 25.02.1996 (Annexure-P/35), he was removed from service by imposing major penalty. The petitioner filed appeal against this order and appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and thereafter he filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a revision before the Department, thereafter he filed revision before the Competent Authority, which has also been dismissed, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 7. It is clear from Annexure-P/10 that in the preliminary enquiry the petitioner objected before the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry by the said Enquiry Officer is not acceptable, thereafter Annexure-P/11 was issued to the petitioner with this direction to submit in writing the reasons/grounds on which he has objected to change the Enquiry Officer R.K. Nagar. The petitioner replied to the same and thereafter vide Annexure-P/12, the previous enquiry officer was changed and some other officer was appointed for enquiry. The petitioner replied to the same and thereafter vide Annexure-P/12, the previous enquiry officer was changed and some other officer was appointed for enquiry. As per Annexure-P/18, the petitioner was asked to appoint any other defence assistant in place of Mr. K.C. Das, as he was on leave and was assisting the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was also asked if he wants enquiry proceedings without any defence assistant, then he answered no and thereafter the petitioner was asked to submit any name as defence assistant. Thereafter the petitioner again filed Annexure-P/24 for change of enquiry officer and various other documents as well, which also contains Telegram receipt (Annexure-P/8), which was filed in support of his defence. The said documents show that the petitioner also filed list of witnesses and medical prescriptions in support of his defence. 8. It is clear from the list of documents and witnesses that the petitioner wanted to examine some doctors in his defence but as per enquiry report, the petitioner did not file sufficient medical documents and did not prove this fact that he was not well. It is clear from all documents that after the sanctioned leave, the petitioner was absent for 95 days. It is also clear from enquiry report that the petitioner did not file any unfit certificate within time. The letters filed filed by the petitioner also make it clear that every now and then he filed objections and as per prayer of the petitioner, the enquiry officer was also changed. Thus, the ample opportunity was given to the petitioner during departmental enquiry and after that order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. It is also clear that the Appellate Authority also considered all grounds of appeal and the Revisional Authority also considered all grounds/objections of petitioner. The documents available on record show that the petitioner remained absent for 95 days from duty without any sanctioned leave. 9. Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Rules, 2001 provides as under: “34. Nature of Penalties - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on an enrolled member of the Force, namely: Major Penalties: (i) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. (ii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. (iii) compulsory retirement. (ii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. (iii) compulsory retirement. (iv) reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the enrolled member of the Force during such specified period to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the said specified period: (a) the period of reduction to time scale of pay, grade, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay, and if so, to what extent. (b) the enrolled member of the Force shall regain his original seniority in the higher time scale of pay, grade, post or service. (v) save as provided for in clause (viii) below - reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the enrolled member will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Minor penalties: (vi) Censure. (vii) withholding of his promotion. (viii) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. (ix) withholding of increment of pay. (x) fine to any amount not exceeding of 7 days pay. Explanation - The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely: (a) withholding of increment of an enrolled member for failure to pass a departmental examination in accordance with the rules or orders or the terms of his appointment. (b) stoppage of increment of an enrolled member at the efficiency bar in a time scale of pay on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar. (c) non-promotion of an enrolled member whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, after consideration of his case, to a rank or post for promotion to which he is eligible. (b) stoppage of increment of an enrolled member at the efficiency bar in a time scale of pay on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar. (c) non-promotion of an enrolled member whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, after consideration of his case, to a rank or post for promotion to which he is eligible. (d) reversion of an enrolled member officiating in a higher rank or post to a lower rank or post, on the ground that he is considered after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher rank or post or on any administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct. (e) reversion of an enrolled member appointed on probation to any other rank or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation. (f) replacement of the services of an enrolled member whose services had been borrowed from any department of the Central Government or State Government or any authority under the Central Government or the State Government at the disposal of the Central Government or the State Government or the authority from which the services of such enrolled member had been borrowed. (g) compulsory retirement of an enrolled member in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement. (h) Termination of service: (i) of an enrolled member appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of his probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation. (ii) of a temporary enrolled member in accordance with the provisions of rule 25. (iii) of an enrolled member, employed under an agreement, in accordance with the terms of such agreement: (i) treatment of absence from duty as “dies-non” ordered by a competent authority under rule 55.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran passed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23631/2008, decided on 19.11.2014, observed in Para 13 of its judgment as under: “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority. (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf. (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings. (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case. (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations. (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion. (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence. (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding. (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) re-appreciate the evidence. (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law. (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence. (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence. (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be. (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 11. In the present case, after the sanctioned leave, the petitioner was absent for 95 days from duty and he did not file any unfit certificate within time. The letters filed by the petitioner also make it clear that every now and then he filed objections and as per prayer of the petitioner, the enquiry officer was also changed. In the present case, after the sanctioned leave, the petitioner was absent for 95 days from duty and he did not file any unfit certificate within time. The letters filed by the petitioner also make it clear that every now and then he filed objections and as per prayer of the petitioner, the enquiry officer was also changed. It is also clear from the list of documents and witnesses that though the petitioner wanted to examine some doctors in his defence but as per enquiry report, the petitioner did not file sufficient medical documents and did not prove this fact that he was not well. Thus, the ample opportunity was given to the petitioner during departmental enquiry and after that order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner being a member of a disciplined force was required to submit explanation for his prolonged absence from duties but he did not do so. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 12. The writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.