IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11156 of 1999 RAKESH KUMAR SINGH son of Shri Sharda Nandan Singh resident of Village Salahpur,P.O. and P.S. Andar, District-Siwan Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum 3. Sri Raghubir Singh son of not known, the Commandant 81 Batalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Mantri Pukhari, Imphal, Manipur. 4. The State of Bihar............... Respondents. For the petitioner:- Mr. Manan Kr. Mishra,Advocate For the Union of India:- Mr.S.N.Pathak,SCCG For the State :- S.C. 17 -------- 4 6-1-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. On going through the impugned order contained in annexures 4 and 5 it is found that petitioner as a Sepoy in Central Reserve Force obtained casual leave of 9 days but did not report on 17-8-1998 the due date. Thereafter he could not be sanctioned any leave although he claims to have sent application. Since he did not report within 60 days of remaining absent from duty without authorized leave, a warrant of arrest was issued on 5-11-1998 and thereafter when he did not report for duty or could not be apprehended, order dated 14th March, 1999 contained in annexue-4 was issued declaring him as a deserter from the force and departmental proceeding was initiated. He did not appear to defend himself in the proceeding. The impugned order dated 18th June, 1999 ( Annexure-5) was passed thereafter dismissing him from service in - 2 - Naresh view of all the materials available on record in the departmental proceeding. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that warrant of arrest should not have been issued and the only punishment which could have been inflicted upon the petitioner could have been a minor punishment. Lastly, it has been submitted that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. On going through the relevant provisions of the Central Reserve Force Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder this court finds no illegality in the action of the respondents. As petitioner was a member ( Sepoy ) of an Armed Paramilitary Force, he was required to show more discipline but to the contrary he deserted the force and never came back even to defend himself in the proceeding. In the facts of the case the order of punishment does not appear to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. The writ petition is, therefore found to be without any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)