IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11334 of 2009 MD.ILIYAS KHAN s/o late Isha Khan, resident of village+ P.O. Sonbarsa, P.S. G.B.Nagar (Tarwara),District- Siwan. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA. 2. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Head quarter, New Delhi. 3. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone Head Quarter, Patna(Bihar). 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone Head Quarter, Patna (Bihar.) 5. The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, C.I.S.F. Unit NALCO, Damanjodi, District- Koraput, Orissa. ----------- 2 7.9.09 Petitioner was a constable (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force. He was granted two weeks leave and he returned after fifty two days .His plea was that he was ill. Inspite of being directed to report to group hospital or go for treatment to government hospital, he did nothing. He was chargesheeted for unauthorized leave and second charge was also there that on 15 previous occasions, he was similarly punished. Enquiry having been conducted, he was dismissed from service, which was not interfered in appeal . Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. From the impugned order, it is clear that the gist of the enquiry report and the enquiry report were sent by registered post to his own address and returned with an endorsement “refused to receive”. Mr. Singh then contends that the petitioner had led his defence, which has not been considered. Again from perusing the order, it is clear that - 2 - the defence was disbelieved having been discussed. Those are the findings of fact by both the authorities and do not call for interference. Lastly, it was submitted that the punishment is disproportionate. In my view, the very fact that the authorities brought in second charge would show that the petitioner on 15 previous occasions had been found guilty for unauthorized absence and punished. I do not find that the punishment is disproportionate and requires any interference. This writ application merits no consideration and is dismissed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)