wp8386.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8386 OF 2009 Umakant s/o Narayan Sonwane, R/o-Village Nardana, Tq-Sindakheda, Dist-Dhule. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Defence, 2) The Commandant-50, Battalion-Keripubal, Office of the Commandant-50, Central Reserve Police Force, Sindri (Jharkhand). ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.A. Dhengle Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. wp8386.09 2 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force on 17th June, 2004. On 3rd January, 2008 he proceeded on leave without issuing any notice or intimation and without getting sanction of leave from the employer. He reported to duty on 3rd May 2008, after 121 days. Departmental enquiry was held and the Petitioner was dismissed from service. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before D.I.G.P., Central Reserve Police Force. The appeal came to be dismissed by the Authority concerned in the month of March, 2009. The Revision filed by the Petitioner also came to be dismissed. 3. On behalf of the Petitioner, the counsel submits that there is no dispute that the Petitioner remained absent without leave as his wife was seriously ill. The punishment imposed on the Petitioner is harsh and disproportionate to the guilt. The counsel placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Chairman-cum- wp8386.09 3 Manging Director, Coal India Ltd. & Another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Others, 2009 A.I.R. S.C.W. Page 5596. 4. Consequent to the notice issued by this Court, the Respondents appeared and filed affidavit in reply. Shri. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel for Respondents submits that Central Reserve Police Force is a disciplined force. The conduct of the Petitioner was viewed seriously, as the Petitioner avoided to undergo training course and left the Head Quarter without leave and intimation. The Petitioner reported to duties after considerable time. The counsel, therefore, submits that after considering the facts of the case and explanation tendered, services of the Petitioner were dismissed. 5. We have perused the impugned orders placed before us, reply filed by the Respondents. We have also perused the Judgment cited before us. wp8386.09 4 We do not find any procedural violation in conducting enquiry. In the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioner failed to explain, by adducing evidence, the reason for his absence. According to Respondent employer, the Petitioner was to undergo training course. The Petitioner avoided the said course and left Head Quarter without intimation. This was viewed by the employer as a serious misconduct and considering all the circumstances, the Respondent employer decided to terminate services of the Petitioner. 6. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT11