THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.78 OF 2002 DATED 12TH MARCH, 2010 BETWEEN Jyothi Ram Chiwade … Petitioner And Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, for Home, South Block, New Delhi. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.78 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), challenges the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad, removing him from service, and the order dated 02.08.2001 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad, confirming the same in appeal. He seeks a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits. The petitioner joined as a Constable in the CRPF in the year 1995. While serving in the 5th Battalion, CRPF, Secunderabad, in April, 1999 he underwent treatment at the CRPF Hospital at Srinagar. At that time an earthquake occurred in the Latur District area of Maharashtra. As his family resided in the said area, the petitioner sought leave to go to Latur but the said request was rejected. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner left to Latur in April, 1999. It is his case that he fell ill thereafter during May, 1999 and had to undergo treatment at Latur till October, 1999. He claims to have reported back for duty on 18.10.1999. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Office Memorandum dated 14.10.1999 for deserting the service on 30.04.1999. By order dated 12.02.2000 the Commandant, 5th Battalion, CRPF, Secunderabad, imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of reduction of his pay by one stage for three years with cumulative effect. While so, exercising powers under Rule 29(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 framed under Section 18 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad, issued show-cause notice dated 14.08.2000 proposing to enhance the punishment imposed to removal from service. The petitioner responded to the same under explanation dated 15.09.2000. By the impugned proceedings dated 30.10.2000, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad, enhanced the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and removed him from service with effect from the date of receipt of the said order. In appeal, the said punishment was confirmed by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad, by order dated 02.08.2001. Hence, this writ petition. Sri S.Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the offence committed by him. The learned counsel further stressed on the fact that the very same material had been considered by the Commandant, 5th Battalion, CRPF, Secunderabad, while imposing the lesser punishment of reduction of pay and that no fresh grounds were made out for enhancement of the said punishment by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad. Rule 29(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, reads as under: “29. Revision: (d) The Director General or the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General may call for the records of award of any punishment and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same or make or direct further investigation to be made before passing such orders: Provided that in a case in which it is proposed to enhance punishment, the accused shall be given an opportunity to show cause either orally or in writing as to why his punishment should not be enhanced.” In the present case, the record reflects that the petitioner was put on notice about the proposal of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad, to enhance the punishment imposed on him and the petitioner’s explanation dated 15.09.2000 was also taken into consideration by the said authority. The order dated 30.10.2000 also manifests that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary proof in support of his plea that he had fallen sick on reaching Latur. Disciplinary action taken by the employer against an employee is subject to judicial review on limited grounds. It is not the decision but the decision making process which is the subject matter of scrutiny before the Court. Further, in the case of a uniformed service such as the CRPF, this Court would be all the more chary of interfering in disciplinary matters unless the decision making process is shown to be illegal or vitiated by any material irregularities. In the present case, the record demonstrates that the petitioner was himself at fault for not producing the relevant material before the authorities to substantiate his plea that he had fallen ill and that the same was the reason for his not reporting for duty. On the other hand, the authorities recorded the fact that the petitioner remained absent for a long duration of 171 days and that he failed to respond to the communications/directions from his Unit calling upon him to report back for duty. Such being the state of affairs, no reasons are made out warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. With regard to the proportionality of the punishment, absence from duty in a regular service cannot be equated with such dereliction of duty in a uniformed service like the CRPF. The petitioner admittedly stayed away from duty for a long stretch of 171 days. The standards of discipline to be maintained in a uniformed service being far higher, it is not open to the petitioner to seek indulgence on grounds of proportionality. Enforcement of discipline in uniformed services must be left to such services and cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction unless specific circumstances are made out warranting the same. No such circumstances are made out in the present case. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state, as the petitioner was removed from service and was not dismissed, it does not bar him from seeking appointment afresh in the CRPF, subject to his suitability, eligibility and the relevant rules. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 12TH MARCH, 2010. VGSR/PGS