JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging legality and validity of order dated 04.12.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority for imposing penalty of dismissal from service along with other ancillary penalties. Petitioner has also assailed appellate order dated 27.05.2002 and order dated 01.09.2003 passed by the Revisional Authority. He has further prayed for directions against the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service by maintaining continuity along with all consequential benefits including back wages. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was enrolled and appointed with Central Reserve Police Force on 10.06.1991 and has rendered his services in excellent manner. He was also issued recommendation letter dated 28.01.1997 acknowledging his commendable services. However, by leveling alleged ground of willful absence and treating the petitioner to be absconder, without following principles of natural justice as well as the procedure contemplated under CRPF Act and Rules made thereunder, order dated 04.12.2000 has been passed whereby, penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed and all the medals/awards earlier given to the petitioner have also been made ineffective and rejected. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground that the order of removal dated 04.12.2000 suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction as the same has been passed under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which deals with minor penalties and the disciplinary authority had no power or competence to impose penalty of dismissal while exercising powers under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1949. He further submitted that only on account of making a request for granting leave as well as for proceeding on leave, the petitioner has wrongly been treated as deserter and without following the due procedure of enquiry, the order dated 04.12.2000 has been passed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority raising objections with regard to validity and propriety of dismissal order, yet without properly examining the grounds of appeal, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and thereafter, revision filed by the petitioner was also not entertained. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority raising objections with regard to validity and propriety of dismissal order, yet without properly examining the grounds of appeal, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and thereafter, revision filed by the petitioner was also not entertained. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed by his higher officers where, despite the fact that the petitioner requested for leave for treatment of his child as he was not well, the officers misbehaved with him and did not grant leave to him and the absence of the petitioner has been treated to be willful and unauthorized. No Court of enquiry was conducted for holding the petitioner as absconder. He submits that penalty of dismissal from service being one of the harshest penalty cannot be imposed without making compliance of the procedure however, in the instant case, the order has been passed in utter violation of the procedure contemplated under the Act and the rules. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma in Civil Appeal No. 2608/2012 decided on 02.07.2018, Ch. Prabhakar Rao Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, New Delhi Range, CRPF, New Delhi & Ors. in W.P. No. 14868/2001 decided on 03.08.2011, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Giriraj Sharma in Civil Appeal No. 2982/1989 decided on 17.03.1993, Manoj Singh Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No. 2462/1999 decided on 03.08.2001 & Angrez Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. in SWP No. 195/2000 decided on 31.12.2001. 6. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was opposed by the respondents by way of filing reply categorically denying all the allegations leveled by the petitioner in his writ petition. It has been highlighted that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and in his service tenure of 8 years, he has been charged with, as many as 6 times, for remaining willfully absent and on three different occasions, he has also suffered line imprisonment, which shows sheer indiscipline on the part of the petitioner, it is submitted that CRPF is a discipline force where degree of discipline is much higher than any other civil services. It was submitted that on account of committing misconduct and for misbehaving with the higher officer, he was saddled with a punishment of 15 days line imprisonment however, much earlier to the decision over the representation of the writ petition against such punishment, the petitioner ran away from the camp. His continuous indiscipline has caused inconvenience as well as has also put the question of discipline in respondent department at stakes. It is submitted that prior to passing order of penalty respondents have followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act and Rules in letter and spirit. The petitioner was granted complete opportunity of hearing and putting his defence, the petitioner even avoided participation in enquiry despite serving so many notices to the petitioner under these circumstances after conducting enquiry and taking into consideration, the evidence on record, the enquiry officer was held guilty. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and finding the petitioner guilty of the charge leveled against him as well as after considering the fact that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and earlier also on 6 occasions penalty for willful absence was given to the petitioner, however, even then he did not show any improvement in his conduct and behaviour, hence considering all relevant factors, the competent authority has passed penalty of dismissal from service which has duly been confirmed by the higher authorities. As regards the competence of the disciplinary authority in passing order of dismissal under section 11 of the Act, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of section 11 are quite clear and confers power upon the disciplinary authority to pass order of dismissal from service. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Ghulab Mohd. Bhat in Civil Appeal No. 4950/1999 decided on 20 October 2005. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. As regards, the first ground raised by the petitioner that under Section 11 of the Act of 1949, the disciplinary authority has got no power to impose penalty of dismissal from service, it would be relevant to refer the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1949, which are as under: "11. 8. As regards, the first ground raised by the petitioner that under Section 11 of the Act of 1949, the disciplinary authority has got no power to impose penalty of dismissal from service, it would be relevant to refer the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1949, which are as under: "11. (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act award in lieu of or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force whom he considered to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force, that is to say:- (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month’s pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty eight days with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (b) of sub-section (l) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorised in this behalf by the Commandant. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (b) of sub-section (l) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorised in this behalf by the Commandant. (3) The Assistant Commandant, a Company Officer or a Subordinate Officer, not being below the rank of Subedar or Inspector commanding a separate detachment or an outpost, or in temporary command at the headquarters of the force, may, without a formal trial, award to any member of the force who is for the time being subject to his authority any one or more of the following punishments for the commission of any petty offence against discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this Act or which is not of a sufficiently serous nature to require prosecution before a Criminal Court that is to say:- (a) confinement for not more that seven days in the quarter guard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances during its continuance; (b) punishment drill, or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days, with or without confinement to quarters, lines, or camp. (4) A Jemadar or Sub-Inspector who is temporarily in command of a detachment or an outpost may in like manner and for the commission of any like offence award to any member of the force for the time being subject to his authority any of the punishment specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) for not more than fifteen days. 9. The aforesaid provision reflects that it empowers the commandant or any other authority or officer to award in lieu of or in addition to suspension or dismissal any one or more of the punishments as prescribed under Section 11 from (a) to (e). Thus, using the word 'in lieu of or in addition to dismissal' are sufficient to infer that power of imposing penalty of dismissal has specifically been given under the aforesaid provision by the legislature and therefore, action of the respondents cannot be challenged on this ground. In the case of Union of India vs. Ghulab Mohd. Thus, using the word 'in lieu of or in addition to dismissal' are sufficient to infer that power of imposing penalty of dismissal has specifically been given under the aforesaid provision by the legislature and therefore, action of the respondents cannot be challenged on this ground. In the case of Union of India vs. Ghulab Mohd. Bhat (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the aforesaid provision in following manner: "A bare perusal of Section 11 shows that it deals with minor punishment as compared to the major punishments prescribed in the preceding section. It lays down that the prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under the Act, award any one or more of the punishments to any member of the force who is found guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of his duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force. According to the High Court the only punishments which can be awarded under this Section are reduction in rank, fine, confinement to quarters and removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force. In our opinion, the interpretation is not correct, because the section says that these punishments may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal. The use of words 'in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal' appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 11 before clauses (a) to (e) shows that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) may also be awarded. It may be noted that Section 9 of the Act mentions serious or heinous offences and also prescribes penalty which may be awarded for them. Section 10 deals with less heinous offences and clause (m) thereof shows that absence of a member of the force without leave or without sufficient cause or overstay without sufficient cause, is also mentioned as less heinous offence and for that also a sentence of imprisonment is provided. Section 10 deals with less heinous offences and clause (m) thereof shows that absence of a member of the force without leave or without sufficient cause or overstay without sufficient cause, is also mentioned as less heinous offence and for that also a sentence of imprisonment is provided. It is, therefore, clear that Section 11 deals with only those minor punishments which may be awarded in a departmental inquiry and a plain reading thereof makes it quite clear that a punishment of dismissal can certainly be awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10.06.1991. It is fairly well settled position in law that removal is a form of dismissal. This Court in Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (Since Deceased by his L.Rs.) v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1992 SC 786 explained that removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing and both bring about termination of service though every termination of service does not amount to removal or dismissal. The only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal the employee is disqualified from future employment while in the case of removal he is not debarred from getting future employment. Therefore, dismissal has more serious consequences in comparison to removal. In any event, Section 11 (1) refers to Rules made under the Act under which action can be taken. Rule 27 is part of Rules made under the Act. Rule 27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority. In the instant case the Commandant who had passed the order of removal was the competent authority to pass the order. 10. Thus, in view of above, it is clear that the disciplinary authority was having power and competence to pass penalty of dismissal against the petitioner. 11. This Court has also examined that sufficient material has been placed on record by the respondents to show that complete procedure of conducting enquiry has been followed by the enquiry officer, however, petitioner did not join the enquiry proceedings and has not participated therein. After recording the evidence, enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty of the charges and thereafter, the disciplinary authority, after analyzing the report of enquiry officer, has agreed with the findings of enquiry officer. After recording the evidence, enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty of the charges and thereafter, the disciplinary authority, after analyzing the report of enquiry officer, has agreed with the findings of enquiry officer. The issue with regard to past conduct of the petitioner including habitual absenteeism, penalties on 6 different occasions for remaining willful absent as well as three penalties of line imprisonment have also been considered. Since, undettered by the earlier penalties, the petitioner repeated misconduct of remaining willfully absent and absconded by avoiding the line imprisonment, therefore penalty of dismissal from service along with other ancillary penalties has been awarded by the disciplinary authorities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment delivered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Ex.C. Satpal Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 857 , while examining the penalty of dismissal on the allegations of willful absenteeism has held that even past conduct of the deliquent can be examined while considering the question of punishment. Relevant part of the judgment is being reproduced as under: "24 . This Court in Bishamber Das Dogra’s case (supra) , has examined a similar issue and, after taking into consideration the judgment of this Court rendered in K. Manche Gowda’s case (supra) held as under:- “ 24 . In State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, this Court held that the disciplinary authority should inform the delinquent employee that it is likely to take into consideration the past conduct of the employee while imposing the punishment unless the proved charge against the delinquent is so grave that it may independently warrant the proposed punishment. Though his previous record may not be the subject-matter of the charge at the first instance. xx xx xx xx 30. In view of the above, it is evident that it is desirable that the delinquent employee may be informed by the disciplinary authority that his past conduct would be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment. But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require. [Emphasis Supplied] 31. It is settled legal proposition that habitual absenteeism means gross violation of discipline [vide Burn & Co. [Emphasis Supplied] 31. It is settled legal proposition that habitual absenteeism means gross violation of discipline [vide Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR p. 530, para 5) and L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar (SCC p. 226, para 6).] 32. The instant case is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. 33. Admittedly, the respondent employee has not completed the service of six years and had been imposed punishment three times for remaining absent from duty. On the fourth occasion when he remained absent for ten days without leave, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The show cause notice could not be served upon him for the reason that he again deserted the line and returned back after fifty days. Therefore the disciplinary proceedings could not be concluded expeditiously. The respondent submitted the reply to the show cause notice and the material on record reveal that during the pendency of the enquiry he further deserted the line for ten days. There is nothing on record to show any explanation for such repeated misconduct or absenteeism. The court/tribunal must keep in mind that such indiscipline is intolerable so far as the disciplined force is concerned. 34. The respondent was a guard in CISF. No attempt had ever been made at any stage by the respondent employee to explain as to what prejudice has been caused to him by non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Nor had he ever submitted that such a course has resulted in failure of justice. More so, the respondent employee had never denied at any stage that he had not been punished three times before initiation of the disciplinary 22 proceedings and deserted the line twice even after issuance of the show-cause notice in the instant case. No explanation could be furnished by the respondent employee as under what circumstances he has not even considered it proper to submit the application for leave. Rather, the respondent thought that he had a right to desert the line at his sweet will. It was a case of gross violation of discipline. Appeal filed by the respondent employee was decided by the statutory appellate authority giving cogent reasons. 35. The facts of the present case did not present special features warranting any interference by the Court in limited exercise of its powers of judicial review. It was a case of gross violation of discipline. Appeal filed by the respondent employee was decided by the statutory appellate authority giving cogent reasons. 35. The facts of the present case did not present special features warranting any interference by the Court in limited exercise of its powers of judicial review. In such a fact situation, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on such technicalities...” 25 . As observed, in the present case, the absence of the respondent from the duty on various occasions in a short tenure of service of around 7 years, is a gross indiscipline on the part of the respondent and therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the services of the respondent have been dismissed." 12. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot sit as an Appellate Authority and can only examine the decision making process and not the decision itself. Since, the procedure has fully been complied with by the respondents, therefore, no interference can be made in the instant writ petition. 13. As regards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner, this Court finds that the question involved in that case was altogether different. As the Enquiry Officer in that case also acted as prosecutor, it was held that the Enquiry Officer lost his capacity as independent adjudicator, hence interference was made by the Apex Court. In the case of Giriraj Sharma (supra), there was allegation of remaining absent only for 12 days without there being any reference of past conduct, which prompted the Hon'ble Supreme Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. So far as the remaining judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no quarrel with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, however, facts of the instant case are all together different therefore such judgments are not attracted in the instant case. 14. In view of above discussion and analysis of facts and law, no interference is called for in the present matter. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.