HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO. 20971 OF 2001 DATED : 25-11-2010 Between: Smt. M N Godavari …Petitioner And The Commandant – 99 Bn., & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO. 20971 OF 2001 O R D E R: The petitioner was working as Constable (Mahila) in 99-Bn., ‘B’ Company RAF (CRPF), Hakimpet, Secunderabad. After departmental enquiry for her unauthorized absence for more than 27 months from 3.10.1998 to 23-01-2001, the following charge was framed. “That the said No. 923020292 CT/Mahila M.N.Godavari of ‘B’ Coy 99 Bn, RAF (CRPF) while functioning as Constable /GD committed an act of misconduct in her capacity as a member of the Force U/S. 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that she is overstaying leave with effect from 3/10/99 (FN) without any sanction or permission from the competent authority.” The Commandant of Battalion was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority, who is the 1st respondent. The petitioner did not attend for the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The 1st respondent as disciplinary authority accepted finding of the Enquiry Officer of misconduct of the petitioner and after following the procedure prescribed by law, passed order dated 23-01-2001 imposing punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Thereupon, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent, who is the appellate authority. The 2nd respondent after considering entire gamut of the case, confirmed order of dismissal of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition seeking writ of Certiorari. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no opportunity was given to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry and that in any event, punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charge said to have been proved against the petitioner. 3. The 1st respondent in his order narrates various notices sent by the disciplinary authority giving opportunities to the petitioner to putforth her defence for the charge. It is contended by the petitioner before the appellate authority that correspondence regarding departmental enquiry made by the 1st respondent to her address was not handed over to her by her husband due to some differences between them. But, the appellate authority noticed that final order of dismissal was also sent to the same address and it was received by the petitioner and she filed the appeal expeditiously. Therefore, he held that there are no merits in the contention of the petitioner that her husband did not hand over correspondence regarding the departmental enquiry due to differences between husband and wife. Thus, in spite of giving all reasonable opportunities as required by rules and law, the petitioner did not avail the same and allowed the departmental enquiry to proceed ex-parte. Now the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that no opportunity was given to her in the departmental enquiry. 4. Originally, the petitioner was sanctioned maternity leave for 135 days from 20-3-1998 to 01-08-1998 and subsequently, 60 days earned leave was also granted in extension of maternity leave from 2-8-1998 to 30-9-1998 with permission to avail gazetted holidays on 01-10-1998 and 02.10.1998. Without joining in duty, the petitioner began sending applications for extension of leave from 01.10.1998 onwards. The said leave applications were rejected and she was asked to join duty and appear at CRPF hospital, Hyderabad. But the petitioner did not obey the said orders. Leave applications were sent without supporting documents of her alleged illness. The lower appellate authority found that she took treatment only once by going as out- patient to a hospital. Ultimately, the petitioner was treated as deserter and arrest warrant was issued against her. In spite of it, the petitioner persisted in absenting herself without reporting for duty. In the interregnum period, the petitioner even threatened to resign in case she was not granted extension of leave. She not only failed to attend for duty after leave period but also failed to attend in the departmental enquiry. CRPF is a disciplined force and such abandonment of duties for a long period from 03.10.1998 to 23.1.2008 amounts to gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner could not show any mitigating circumstances in her favour to award lessor punishment than dismissal. I find that punishment of dismissal awarded by the 1st respondent and confirmed by the 2nd respondent, is not in any way disproportionate, and is legal, appropriate and valid. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt.25-11-2010 Mjl/*