Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) The petitioner herein challenges an order of dismissal of his service from the post of constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) after conclusion of disciplinary proceeding. The charge against the petitioner, as reflected in the final order of dismissal (Annexure P2 to the writ petition) is reproduced below: That, the said No. 874140031 Constable Inderpal Singh of CISF Unit, Durgapur is hereby charged with gross indiscipline and dereliction in that he deserted the Unit Lines from 1315 hrs. on 20 -3 -92 without leave or prior permission from the competent authority which amounts to neglect of duty on the part of the said member and is violation to the provision of CISF Act 18 of 1968.... The final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 29th September 1992 awarding the punishment of dismissal, which was appealed against by the petitioner. On 18th March 1993 the appellate authority rejected the appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. A revision petition was filed by the petitioner but the revisional authority, being the Inspector General (ES) found no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Accordingly, the revision petition was rejected.
(2.) The petitioner was employed with the Central Industrial Security Forces and at the material point of time he was working as a constable and posted at the CISF unit, MAMC, Durgapur. He claims to have had applied for leave for forty days on 16th March 1992 on the ground of his wife's deteriorating health condition when she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. At that point of time, leave was not granted. The petitioner, however, went to his native village on 20th March 1992 without obtaining sanction for leave.
(3.) As it has been pleaded in the affidavit -in -opposition, prior to the passing of the order for dismissal, a notice, described as "Call Up" notice was sent to the home address of the petitioner, but the same was returned with the postal endorsement, "Refused." Thereafter, he was charge sheeted under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969 (this being the operative rule at that point of time). The charge sheet was sent to him at his home address, but this communication was also returned undelivered with similar endorsement. An enquiry officer was subsequently appointed and a notice for enquiry was sent fixing 13th May 1992 as the date of enquiry. This notice again remained undelivered, sent back with the endorsement "refused". Another notice of enquiry was sent to him, and it was then he made communication with the CISF authorities requesting for the notice in his mother language, Hindi. The authorities then accepted such request and sent the notice to him in Hindi. The writ petitioner, however, did not appear in the proceeding before the enquiry officer. The enquiry was conducted ex -parte and the enquiry officer found the charges proved against him. The enquiry report was sent to him eliciting his response, but he did not respond to the report. It is the case of the respondents that after completion of this process, the disciplinary authority found him guilty of the charges and he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service.;