JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “That the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.10.2014 passed the Asst. Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). And Further quashing the order dated 8.10.2013 whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court has been rejected. And Further direction for quashing of order dated 22.4.2010 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the order dated 19.12.2009 has been affirmed by the Group Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force. And Further quashing of order dated 19.12.2009 whereby and whereunder the order of removal from the service by the Group Commandant, from the service by the Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force has been passed and the petitioner has been removed from service. And/or Any other appropriate writ(s) be issued, order(s) be passed and direction(s) be made as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. This writ petition has been filed challenging all the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though all the three authorities have passed orders against the petitioner but the two points which have been raised and mentioned in the impugned order dated 08.10.2013, passed in revision preferred by the petitioner, has not been properly considered, and therefore, the impugned orders call for interference. 6. The portion of the two points and the decision of the revisional authority which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quoted as under: “(ii) The medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer has not been verified by the authority. That under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , doctors are termed in the Category of expert without their examination disbelieving medical certificate is illegal. Observation of the revisional authority A departmental enquiry is conducted to ascertain the facts and examination of the documents draws merit. The enquiry officer after considering statements of all the PWs and material evidences available in the case file proved both the article of charges framed against the petitioner. Observation of the revisional authority A departmental enquiry is conducted to ascertain the facts and examination of the documents draws merit. The enquiry officer after considering statements of all the PWs and material evidences available in the case file proved both the article of charges framed against the petitioner. The DE was conducted as per laid down procedure and the petitioner was given all reasonable opportunity to defend the case. It is not open to the authority to verify each and every medical documents produced by the individual in support of his illness. Hence the plea of the petitioner is not tenable. iii) That Central Institute of Psychiatry is a Government Hospital. The medical certificate issued by the hospital authority may be verified from the hospital. But without any verification it was disbelieved, his defense got prejudiced. Observation of the revisional authority The authenticity of the hospital has never been questioned at any stage. On the contrary, considering the certificate issued by the same institution, the petitioner, having been discharged from the Central Institute of Psychiatry on 20.04.2009 itself should have reported at the unit without any delay. But he failed to report at the unit in spite of the department sending him 3 call-up notices. The petitioner actually reported for duty on 30.10.2009 after making 238 days OSL. Hence, the plea made by the petitioner is not tenable.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted leave for the period from 23.02.2009 to 05.03.2009 and was scheduled to join duty on 06.03.2009, but did not join duty and over stayed the leave period till 27.10.2009 and joined the duty on 30.10.2009. 8. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was under treatment under Dr. Shailendra Kumar, Ranchi from 03.03.2009, and thereafter, under Central Institute of Physiatry, Ranchi from 07.03.2009 onwards and ultimately was treated under Dr. U.N. Choudhary at Kanke and was declared fit for duty by Dr. U.N. Choudhary on 27.10.2009 and thereafter he joined duty. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that the medical documents furnished by the petitioner has been disbelieved although the same could have been verified from the concerned hospital. U.N. Choudhary at Kanke and was declared fit for duty by Dr. U.N. Choudhary on 27.10.2009 and thereafter he joined duty. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that the medical documents furnished by the petitioner has been disbelieved although the same could have been verified from the concerned hospital. He has further submitted that the absence from duty on account of over stay was not intentional, and therefore, the imposition of punishment for removal from service is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 ( Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Anr. ) and submitted that in the said judgment, it has been held that if the absence is result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful. He submits that in the said judgment, it has been further held that absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean that absence is willful. 10. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgement passed by this Court reported in (2016) SCC OnLine Jhar 1097 ( Anil Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ) and submitted that the said case was also a case of over stay and the incumbent had joined the duty after over staying period of 295 days and after obtaining the fitness certificate and it has been held that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and therefore the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to take fresh decision on the quantum of punishment. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, this Court finds that the petitioner was charged with following two charges: “ ???? - 1 Gross misconduct and indiscipline on the part of No.071025416 Constable /GD Akhilesh Yadav of CISF Unit, SAC/PRL – Ahmedabad was sanctioned 01 (one) day Earned Leave (EL) and 10 (ten) days Half Pay Leave (HPL) with effect from 23-02-2009 to 05-03-2009. After expiry of sanctioned leave he was supposed to re-join his duties on 06- 03-2009 (FN), but he failed to re-join his duties and is continuously over staying from leave wef 06-03-2009 (FN) to till date without any valid permission from the competent authority. Hence the charge.” ???? After expiry of sanctioned leave he was supposed to re-join his duties on 06- 03-2009 (FN), but he failed to re-join his duties and is continuously over staying from leave wef 06-03-2009 (FN) to till date without any valid permission from the competent authority. Hence the charge.” ???? - 2 Gross misconduct and indiscipline on the part of No.071025416 Constable/GD Akhilesh Yadav of CISF Unit, SAC / PRL- Ahmedabad was sent following three call up letters to his leave address by Registered/speed post by Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, SAC/PRL Ahmedabad to re-join his duties. (i) Call up letter – I, No.E-42099/CISF/SAC/DOC/2009/946 dated 12-03-09- Through speed post. (ii) Call up letter – II, No.E-42099/CISF/SAC/DOC/2009/1232 dated 27-03-09-Through Regd. A/D. (iii) Call up letter – III, No.E- 42099/CISF/SAC/DOC/2009/1773 dated 25-04-09-Through Regd AD. Even after acknowledgement of the Call up notice No.2 he has not given any reply of the call up notices and violated the orders/instructions issued by the competent authority. Hence the charge.” 12. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the leave was sanctioned only from 23.02.02009 to 05.03.2009 and the petitioner was scheduled to join duty on 06.03.2009 and ultimately, he reported for duty only on 30.10.2009. 13. The specific stand which was taken by the petitioner before the authority was that he was suffering from mental illness and was under treatment under different doctors. The period during which the petitioner claimed to be suffering from mental illness was from 03.03.2009 and that he was treated by Dr. Shailendra Kumar but no document in that connection was produced by the petitioner. However, he claimed to be under treatment by the CIP, Ranchi during the period from 07.03.2009 to 20.04.2009 and in support of which, he produced the bill dated 20.04.2009 and 22.03.2009 from one medical store namely Bharat Medical Hall, Kanke, Ranchi. He further produced certain more bills with regard to his medicines and he claimed to be under treatment of Dr. U.N. Choudhary, Kanke, Ranchi from 18.08.2009 and produced certain bills showing purchase of medicines and Dr. U.N. Choudhary had declared him fit for duty on 27.10.2009 and he reported for duty on 30.10.2009. 14. He further produced certain more bills with regard to his medicines and he claimed to be under treatment of Dr. U.N. Choudhary, Kanke, Ranchi from 18.08.2009 and produced certain bills showing purchase of medicines and Dr. U.N. Choudhary had declared him fit for duty on 27.10.2009 and he reported for duty on 30.10.2009. 14. The final order passed by the disciplinary authority, placed on record as Annexure – 3, reveals that the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner and had also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was only taking those medicines prescribed by doctors; however, at no point was he advised to take bed rest or was declared unfit to resume his duties. The authority has also recorded that the petitioner had also admitted that in spite of the medicines prescribed by Dr. U.N. Choudhary, he was not having the medicines prescribed by him, but was having the medicines prescribed by CIP, Ranchi. 15. The authority has taken into consideration that the petitioner had not informed the authority about his illness from time to time nor he was declared to be unfit to join his duty at any point of time and he was taking medicines at home. He was asked to join duty on repeated occasion, but he did not join the duty. In such circumstances, the authority was of the view that reason for over stay was not accepted. 16. Thus, it is not the case where the medical documents furnished by the petitioner were disbelieved by the authorities, but the authority was of the view that the documents were not enough to justify his over stay as he did not produce any document which called for bed rest or indicated that the petitioner was unfit to join his duty. 17. So far as medical certificate given by Dr. U.N. Choudhary is concerned, as per the certificate, he was under his treatment from 18.08.2009 to 27.10.2009 and it has also been recorded that he was not even having the medicines prescribed by Dr. U.N. Choudhary, and ultimately, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty and removed him from service. 18. 17. So far as medical certificate given by Dr. U.N. Choudhary is concerned, as per the certificate, he was under his treatment from 18.08.2009 to 27.10.2009 and it has also been recorded that he was not even having the medicines prescribed by Dr. U.N. Choudhary, and ultimately, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty and removed him from service. 18. The appellate authority has also taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and has recorded that merely being under treatment is not sufficient to justify over stay from duty and that the documents did not indicate that the petitioner was advised rest or he was not fit for joining his duty. The appellate authority also recorded that the punishment was commensurate with the charge proved against the petitioner. 19. The revisional authority has also considered the materials on record and rejected the plea of the petitioner that the documents produced by the petitioner relating to his medical treatment was covered by Section 45 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT and the plea of the petitioner that the medical certificate were not verified from the hospital by citing reasons. Both the aforesaid pleas of the petitioner do not have any bearing in this case as the disciplinary authority did not disbelieve the medical prescriptions produced by the petitioner rather the disciplinary authority was of the view that the medical documents produced by the petitioner did not indicate that the petitioner required bed rest and was unable to join his duty. So far as the document of Dr. U.N. Choudhary is concerned, the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration that even as per the petitioner, he was not having the medicines prescribed by Dr. U.N. Choudhary but was still taking medicines prescribed by doctors in CIP. The medical fitness certificate was issued by Dr. U.N. Choudhary and the petitioner was under his treatment for a very short period amongst the entire period of his over stay. 20. This Court finds that all the authorities have taken into consideration the materials on record and have also considered the proportionality of the punishment awarded to the petitioner. 21. So far as the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 (supra) is concerned, in paragraph 17, it has been held as follows: “17. 20. This Court finds that all the authorities have taken into consideration the materials on record and have also considered the proportionality of the punishment awarded to the petitioner. 21. So far as the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 (supra) is concerned, in paragraph 17, it has been held as follows: “17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant.” 22. This Court is of the view that the said judgement does not help the petitioner in any manner as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before the authorities and even before this Court that he was unable to join his duty on account of compelling circumstances which was beyond his control like accident, hospitalization etc. 23. The authorities after scrutinizing the materials have arrived at conclusion which is based on appreciation of materials on record. No perversity in the matter of appreciation of the evidence by the authorities as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not hospitalized at any point of time and no document advising bed rest to the petitioner or any document showing that he was otherwise unable to perform his duty were produced to the satisfaction of the authorities. The said judgement does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 24. So far as the other judgement which has been relied upon by the petitioner reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 1097 (supra) , this Court in LPA No.31 of 2015 has refused to interfere with the findings of the authorities and had only remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment upon the appellant. In the said case, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority had proceeded by disbelieving the defence taken by the writ petitioner on the ground that instead of getting himself treated at RINPAS, he got himself treated from private doctors. The only reason for disbelieving the case of the petitioner was that he was taking treatment from private doctors. In the present case, there in neither any case for interference in the quantum of punishment nor any case on merit indicating any perversity in the matter of the orders impugned in the present case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands dismissed as not pressed.