CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16796 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 Sandeep Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. M. L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short, “CRPF”). The petitioner was granted urgent leave for 7 days while he was serving with 96 Battalion CRPF in April 2009, and he was required to report back on 20.4.2009 after availing the leave, inclusive of Sundays and other restricted holidays. He, however, did not report back after the expiry of leave. Letters dated 26.4.2009, 6.5.2009 and 16.5.2009 were sent to the petitioner to report back for duty but he failed to do so. He, however, was brought back to the battalion on 12.8.2009 by Escort Party of Central Group, Pinjore. Thus, the petitioner over-stayed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16796 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: leave by absenting himself from 21.4.2009 to 12.8.2009. The petitioner apparently had no intention to report back as it would reveal from the manner in which he was brought back to the Unit by Escort Party. The Punishing Authority noticed that the petitioner was habitual in remaining absent from duty and for violating the orders. The petitioner was accordingly charge sheeted and departmental enquiry was directed against him. After giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as are recorded in order Annexure P-1, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.3.2010. It is also recorded in the enquiry report that the petitioner accepted the allegations levelled against him. The allegations were, thus, held proved against the petitioner. Copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, as is noticed in the impugned order. The Punishing Authority agreed with the enquiry proceedings and the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. After noticing the earlier absence on the part of the petitioner and the plea of guilty of the petitioner, order removing him from service was passed with immediate effect i.e. 2.6.2010. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, praying for his reinstatement, which was rejected by Deputy Inspector General of Police in October 2010. The petitioner accordingly has filed this petition to impugn both the orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a solitary plea that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the allegations and the misconduct proved. Except for so stating, nothing else is urged to show how the punishment is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the allegations. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16796 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: petitioner belongs to a disciplined Force and had remained absent for nearly four months. He apparently had no intention to report back and his act of overstaying leave came to an end only when he was brought back to the Unit by Escort Party. The petitioner can not boast of previous good record, which was also taken into account while directing his removal from service. Under the circumstances, it can not be said that punishment, in any manner, is not commensurate with the nature and gravity of the allegations proved against the petitioner, to which he had pleaded guilty. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE