WA 309/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B.LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. SAHA The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 4th August, 2009 passed by the lear ned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4771/2007. Two articles of charge were framed against the appellant who was a Constable (GD ) in the Central Reserve Police Force. The articles of charge are as follows: ARTICLE -I Whereas No.991242383 CT/GD M.A. Hazarika of this Unit while functioning as Const able (GD) in A/90 Bn. CRPF committed an act of misconduct In his capacity as a m ember of the Force U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that, he was found absent from duty at Morcha No.4 while on 24 hours Guard duty on 25/10/06 without proper per mission/sanction of the competent authority which is prejudicial to good order a nd discipline of the Force. ARTICLE - II Whereas No.991242383 CT/GD M.A. Hazarika of the Unit while functioning as Consta ble (GD) 1 A/90 Bn. CRPF committee an act of misconduct in his capacity as a mem ber of the Force U.S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that, he had deserted from camp while on active duty on 25/10/06 at about 0900 hours without proper permission/s anction of the competent authority and reported back on 26/10/06 at about 1500 h ours, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force. The appellant was found guilty of both the charges after an enquiry and in terms of the enquiry report dated 20.12.2006. The departmental appeal did not yield any positive result insofar as the appella nt is concerned and that is why he filed a writ petition challenging the proceed ings. At this stage, it may be mentioned that as a result of the disciplinary proceedi ngs, the appellant was removed from service. Before the learned Single Judge, th e only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant was that the quant um of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The learned Single Judge considered the case in the light of the submissions mad e before him and noted that the appellant is a member of a disciplined force and was posted on guard duty. The appellant was not expected to leave the duty with out prior permission from his superior officer. The act of abandoning the post w ithout any intimation to his superior officer particularly in an area which is i nfested with various groups of militants, was not appropriate on the part of the appellant. Taking all these factors into consideration, the learned Single Judge held that the punishment awarded to the appellant was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and there is no reason to disagree with the view taken by the dis ciplinary authority in this regard. Before us also learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same submiss ion but for the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that his client was not away from duty for 30 hours as alleged. We cannot permit this argument to b e raised particularly, in view of the fact that the second article of charge cle arly mentions that the appellant had deserted from the camp while on duty on 25/ 10/06 at about 0900 hours and reported back only on 26/10/06 at about 1500 hours . As such the appellant was away for 30 hours without prior permission from or i ntimation to his superior officer. This charge was proved against the appellant and the finding was not challenged before the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has observed, and rightly so, tha t the appellant was unauthorizedly absent from duty amounting to desertion for a long period of 30 hours. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed.