WP(C) 4399/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel appearing for the N.F. Railways. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Annexu re-6 order dated 12.05.1997 by which pursuant to a departmental proceeding the p etitioner was removed from service. The said order passed in the year 1997 has b een put to challenge by filing the instant writ petition in 2004. The petitioner was issued with Annexure-A charge sheet dated 01.07.96 le velling the charge of unauthorised absence from duty. Be it stated here that the petitioner being a RPF personnel was a member of the disciplined force. The pet itioner duly participated in the enquiry proceeding. In paragraph- 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner himself has stated that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry on 22.07.96 and he duly participated in the proceeding. It has been stated in the said paragraph that due to some compelling circumstances and lack of sufficient knowledge and manpower he was absent from duty without informing t he authority. Thus the fact narrated in the writ petition speaks for itself. On a total reading of the statement made in paragraph- 7 what is seen is that befor e the enquiry officer it was never the stand of the petitioner that he was sick as has been tried to be made out in the writ petition. In paragraph-8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated about fur nishing of the copy of the enquiry report and thereafter passing of the impugned order of removal from service. In the writ petition the petitioner has stated a bout his purported illness from 09.03.1995 to 07.08.1995 and thereafter further treatment from 06.01.1997 to 31.12.1997. According to the petitioner, he remaine d under treatment upto 26.07.2001. However, by that time the impugned order was issued on 12.05.97. Before the enquiry officer the petitioner never stated about his alleged illness, rather as disclosed in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, h e had admitted before the enquiry officer that he was absent from duty unauthori sedly due to compelling circumstances and lack of sufficient knowledge and manp ower. Although the order of removal was passed way back in 1997 (12.05.97), th e petitioner did not do anything in the matter and thereafter he made Annexure-E appeal dated 27.07.2001 which was after more than four years of the impugned or der of removal. However, the appellate authority duly entertained the said appea l and rejected the same by order dated 06.05.2003. Coming to the writ court, the petitioner has taken recourse to his alleg ed illness. In this connection, he has enclosed certain medical certificates. Ho wever, there is no whisper in the writ petition as to what prevented the petitio ner to inform the authority about his alleged illness. Rather as stated in parag raph-7 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated before the enquiry officer th at he was unautyhorisedly absent from duty because of some compelling circumstan ces and lack of sufficient knowledge and manpower. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the stand of the petitioner re lating to his alleged illness has been denied. Even if the petitioner had suffer ed from illness, that was only after the order of removal from service and/or af ter participation in the enquiry proceeding. In the RPF Rules, unauthorised absence from duty is a serious offence. I n the case of Union of India vs. Mithilesh Singh reported in 2000 (3) GLT 62, t he Division Bench of this Court under similar circumstances while interfering wi th the judgment of the learned Single Judge, held that unauthorised absence of a n RPF personnel is a serious offence and the disciplinary authority is within th e competence and jurisdiction to impose the penalty of removal from service. The judgment was carried on appeal before the Apex Court and the Apex Court by its judgment reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309, while upholding the decision of the Divis ion Bench of this Court held that a member of the disciplined force cannot take recourse of unauthorised absence. As already observed above, the facts narrated in the writ petition speak for its elf. The petitioner having admitted the charge levelled against him he cannot no w turn around the same so as to contend that he was sick. As has been held by th e Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1972 SC 32, (Channabasappa Basappa Happali vs. State of Mysore), admission of fact mentioned in the charge amounts to admission of guilt. In that case also a police officer after remaining absent from duty unauthroisedly took the plea of violation of the principle of natura l justice. The Apex Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the ca se, more particularly the fact that the petitioner himself had admitted the fact , held that the petitioner having admitted the fact alleged in the charge sheet virtually admitted the charge itself. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.