Madrasdated High Court · 2005

J U D G M E N TTHE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugnedorder of the learned single Judge dated 11.12.1997, passedin W.P.No.20682 of 1993.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe record.3. By means of W.P.No.20682 of 1993 the writpetitioner (respondent herein) challenged the order of theCommandant, 78th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force(hereinafter referred to as CRPF), Punjab dated nil August1993. By that order the writ petitioner was removed fromservice of the CRPF w.e.f. 18.08.1993 under Section 11(1)of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules,1955. 4. The writ petitioner stated in his affidavit filedin support of the writ petition that he joined the servicesof CRPF as constable on 28.10.1987 after a selection. It isalleged that he was transferred to Punjab on 21.11.1988,and thereafter, to various other places. It is alleged thaton 09.11.1992 the petitioner was granted 60 days earnedleave by the Commandant, 78th Battalion, CRPF, Punjab (3rdrespondent in the writ petition), and he was supposed tojoin duty on 08.01.1993, but he applied for extension ofleave on health grounds. It is alleged that the writpetitioner returned for duty only on 10.03.1993 andproduced a Medical Certificate dated 04.01.1993 issued byone Dr.Palaniswamy, MBBS, Government Medical Officer,Primary Health Center, Mookareddi Patti, Tamil Nadu. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner was informed bythe 3rd respondent by his memorandum dated 15.04.1993 thathe proposed to hold a departmental enquiry under Rule 27 ofthe CRPF Rules. The article of Charges framed against thewrit petitioner were as follows:- “Article – 1: That No.871222876 Ct. P.Gurunathanof 78th Bn, CRPF while functioning as Constable(GD) in E/78 Bn, CRPF, committed act ofmisconduct in his capacity as a member of theForce u/s 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that heoverstayed leave by 61 days from 08.01.1993 to09.03.1993 (AN) without any authority/properpermission from competent authority. Article – 2: That the said No.871222876 Ct.P.Gurunathan of 78th Bn, CRPF while functioningas Constable (GD) in E/78 Bn, CRPF committed anact of misconduct in his capacity as a member ofthe force u/s 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that hedid not comply with the orders of the competentauthority directing him to report for duty https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conveyed vide telegram dated 12.02.1993 and OC-E/78 Bn., CRPF letter No.L.II-2/93-E-78 dated20.02.1993.” 6. It is further alleged in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition that the writ petitioner byletter dated 17.05.1993 addressed to the 3rd respondent inthe writ petition stated that due to jaundice from08.01.1993 he could not travel from his hometown to theduty place i.e., Punjab. It is alleged that the writpetitioner had also sent two telegrams, but they werereceived by the 3rd respondent on 04.03.1993 after a lapseof many days. 7. A departmental enquiry was held against the writpetitioner. In that enquiry the writ petitioner was givenan opportunity of hearing, and thereafter he was foundguilty. 8. We have perused the enquiry report which has beenannexed to the typed set in this appeal. A perusal of thesame shows that the writ petitioner was allowed to defendhis case in the enquiry. Two witnesses were examined onbehalf of the prosecution, but the writ petitioner did notproduce any defence witness. 9. The Enquiry Report states:- “ANALYSIS OF CHARGESIn Article No.I Ct.P.Gurunathan has beencharged that he overstayed by 61 days w.e.f.08.01.1993 to 09.03.1993 without prior permissionfrom the competent authority and remained absentwillfully. The said Ct. had proceeding on 60 daysE/L in connection with his brother’s marriage.But, it did not take place. When leave was almostover and he was about to proceed he fell ill dueto jaundice. But, on the meticulous examinationof papers and the statement of the accused aswell as witnesses it appears that he did not fellill. It is a mere excuse as telegram sent by theaccused and the medical documents produced by himare incongruous. As per the telegram received bythe Comdt 78 Bn CRPG from Ct.P.Gurunathan on11.01.1993 he was hospitalized but medicaldocuments produced before the authority E/O donot prove it. In his statement also accusedCt.P.Gurunathan accepted that he was not admittedin hospital. Neither individual produced anyprescription by doctor or cash memo, out doorpatient’s slip, etc., so that E/o has reason tobelieve that the statement of the accused arefalse. So far charge of absent without the priorpermission of the competent authority isconcerned accused could not produce anypaper/such order by competent authority https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permitting him to overstay. He along withprosecution witnesses Nos.1 and 2 also acceptedthat he was not granted extension of leave ratherhe was informed many a times through telegramdt.12.02.1993 and letter No.II-1/93/E/78 dated20.02.1993 from O.C. E/78 Bn CRPF asking him toreport back on duty. Hence, the charge framedagainst Ct.G.Gurunathan that he overstayed leaveby 61 days willfully without prior permission ofcompetent authority is proved beyond doubt. In the Article II of charge it is said thatbeing a member of the force Ct.P.Gurunathan didnot comply with the orders of the competentauthority directing him to report for dutyconveyed vide telegram dated 1222-93 andO.C.E/E/78 Bn CRPF letter No.L.II-1/93-E/78 dated20.02.1993 Ct.P.Gurunathan did not comply withthe orders of the Senior Officers and in supportof his non-compliance produced a medicalcertificate which is insufficient to prove thevalidity of the ground of his willful absence.Thus, the charge framed against him that he didnot comply with the orders of the superior isproved. REPORTOn the basis of detailed analysis ofthe statements of prosecution witnesses,delinquent and the available record/documents thereport of the Enquiry Officer is as under:- Article I of Charge that No.871222876Ct.P.Gurunathan of E/78 Bn CRPF committed an actof mis-conduct in his capacity as a member of theforce under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 inthat he overstayed leave by 61 days from08.01.1993 to 09.03.1993 AN without anyauthority/prior permission from the competentauthority. The said individual had gone on 60days EL in connection with the brother’s marriagethough in application he wrote brother’s marriageand in the statement he said that he had gone inconnection with sister’s marriage. Thisincongruity shows the false ground of leave heproceeded on. On whichever ground he had gone,but no marriage (either of brother’s or sister’s)took place during his leave period as he says.Accused overstayed leave by 61 days without anyauthority/prior permission of the competentauthority. Though he had sent a medicalcertificate in support of his willful absence butthat is not sufficient to prove that facts as noother medical document was produced by himsupported. Accused Ct.P.Gurunathan was askedthrough telegram dated 12.03.1993 and letter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.L.II-1-93-E/78 dated 20.02.1993 to report backon duty immediately but he kept on overstayingfor a long period of 61 days. This is enough toprove the Article I of Charge framed against himbeyond doubt. So far as Article II of charge is concernedit is very much related to Article I from thetelegram sent by OC-E/78 dated 12.02.1993 andletter No.L.II-I/93-E/78 dated 20.02.1993 and notreporting back to duty by the individual showsvery clearly that he was non-compliant to seniorauthority. The individual behaved in a veryirresponsible and negligent manner which is notin good order and discipline of the force. Chargeframed in Article II is proved beyond doubt.”10. Thereafter, the Commandant, 78th Battalion,CRPF wrote a letter dated 06.07.1993 to the writpetitioner enclosing a copy of the finding of theEnquiry Officer, asking him to send his representationby 20.07.1993. Thereafter, by order dated nil August,1993 the Commandant 78th Battalion removed the writpetitioner from service. The relevant portion of theremoval order dated nil August, 1993 is as follows:- “I have gone through the D.E. proceedingscarefully and agree with the findings of the E.O.I find that both the charges levelled against thedelinquent are proved. I give below reasons forcoming to the above conclusion taking eacharticle of charge separately. ARTICLE - I The charges that the delinquent No.871222876Ct.P.Gurunathan overstayed leave by 61 days from08.01.1993 to 09.03.1993 without anyauthority/prior permission from the competentauthority.D.E. against Ct.Gurunathan:- The delinquent was granted 60 days EL from09.11.1992 to 07.01.1993 with permission to avail08.11.1992 being Sunday. He was thereforerequired to report for duty on the forenoon of08.01.1993 on expiry of the sanctioned leave. On07.01.1993 a telegram was received from thedelinquent informing that he was admitted in thehospital and has requested for extension of theleave. The delinquent was directed by OC-E/78 BnCRPF through telegram dated 12.01.1993 to sendthe medical documents in support of hisillness/admission in the hospital and to intimatespecifically the period for which the extensionof leave is required. In reply he intimated that60 days leave is required. He did not send anymedical documents in support of his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ illness/treatment. He was therefore directedtelegraphically by IC-E/78 Bn CRPF on 12.03.1993to report for duty forthwith. A letter No.L.II-2/93-E/78 dated 20.02.1993 directing thedelinquent to report for duty was also sent tohim at his home address by registered post. Thedelinquent did not respond to these directionsbut continued to overstay leave. Finally on10.03.1993 he reported for duty after overstayingleave by 61 days. On his return he submitted amedical certificate dated 04.01.1993 issued byDr.T.Palanisamy, Medical Officer, Primary HealthCentre, Mookareddipatti (T.N.). As per thiscertificate the delinquent was suffering fromjaundice from 04.01.1993 and therefore wasrecommended 60 days treatment rest. During thecourse of enquiry, the delinquent was stated thathe was not admitted in hospital. But, in thetelegram seeking extension it was revealed by himthat he was admitted in hospital. He gave wronginformation in telegram with the intention ofgetting the extension of leave sanctioned. I havenoticed that the delinquent claims to have fallenill on 04.01.1993 (as per the medical certificateproduced by him) i.e., the day on which he wassupposed to start his return journey on expiry ofsanctioned leave. I have also noticed that thedelinquent failed to produce any other documentssuch as cash memo for purchase of medicines,prescription, OPD number, investigation report,etc. One who is actually undergoing treatment forjaundice is supposed to be in possession of allthese documents. During the course of enquiry hehas stated that he did not know any suchdocuments. He was specifically directed throughtelegram dated 12.02.1993 and letter dated20.03.1993 to submit documents in support of hisillness treatment. In spite of these directionsfailed to produce any documents except acertificate issued by Dr.T.Palanisamy, MBBS whichis not at all sufficient to decide the case inhis favour. The delinquent has failed to produceany valid documents to prove he was actually illand was undergoing treatment. On analyzing thefacts discussed above, I am convinced that thedelinquent was suffering from any disease butmanaged to obtain a medical certificate to coverthe period of overstay. I hold him guilty ofcharge at Art.I.ARTICLE - II Charges at Art.II is that he did not complywith the orders of the competent authoritydirecting him to report for duty conveyed videtelegram dated 12.02.1993 and OC-E/78 Bn CRPF https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ letter No.L.II-2/9 3-E/78 dated 20.02.1993. Thedelinquent was not suffering from any disease ashas been proved in the preceding paragraphs. Assuch he had no reason not to report for duty intime in spite of repeated orders conveyed throughtelegram and letters. I hold him guilty of chargeat Art.II also. D.E. against Ct.P.Gurunathan.Having gone through the case carefully andminutely find that the delinquent has acted in amost unbecoming and irresponsible manner and Ifind him not a fit person to be retained in adisciplined force like CRPF. I, therefore, removethe delinquent No.871222876 Ct.P.Gurunathan fromservice with effect from 18.08.1993 (FN) underthe provisions contained in Section 11(1) of CRPFAct, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955and is struck off from the roll with Rule 27 ofthe CRPF Rules, 1955 and is struck off from thestrength of this unit with effect from the samedate. Before, arriving at the above decision Ihave considered all aspects of the case andapplied my mind judiciously.” 11. Against the removal order the writ petitionerfiled W.P.No.20682 of 1993, which had been allowed by thelearned single Judge vide his impugned order dated11.12.1997. We have carefully perused the impugned order ofthe learned single Judge and are of the opinion that thesame is clearly unsustainable. 12. It may be noted that the learned single Judge hasnot questioned the findings of fact recorded by the EnquiryOfficer, and in fact findings of fact cannot be interferedwith in writ jurisdiction, unless they are based on noevidence, vide Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.Rajapandian,(1995) 1 SCC 216, Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs.Bhola Nath singh, (1997) 3 SCC 657, Commandant, T.N.Special Police, 9th Battalion Vs. D.Paul, 1999 SCC (L&S)789. In this case there is evidence in support of thefindings namely., the two witnesses produced by theprosecution. Moreover, in cases of this nature, i.e., wherethere is allegation of absence without leave the burden ofproof is really on the delinquent to explain his conductand not on the prosecution. A perusal of the impugned orderof removal dated nil August, 1993 shows that the delinquentwas granted 60 days EL from 11.09.1993 to 07.11.1993. On07.11.1993 a telegram was received from him informing thathe was admitted in a hospital and with a request forextension of leave. The delinquent was directed throughtelegram dated 12.01.1993 to send the medical documents insupport of his illness/admission in the hospital and tointimate specifically the period for which the extension ofleave was required. In reply he intimated that 60 days https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ leave was required, but he did not send any medicaldocuments in support of his alleged illness/treatment. Hewas therefore directed telegraphically on 12.03.1993 toreport for duty forthwith. A letter dated 20.02.1993directing him to report for duty was also sent to him athis home address by registered post. However, he did notrespond to this, but continued to overstay his leave.Finally, he reported for duty on 10.03.1993 afteroverstaying leave by 61 days, and on his return hesubmitted a medical certificate issued by Dr.T.Palanisamy,Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mookareddi Patti(TN) which stated that he was suffering from jaundice from04.01.1993 and therefore recommended 60 days treatment andrest. 13. During the course of enquiry the delinquent statedthat he was not admitted in the hospital, but in thetelegram seeking extension it was alleged by him that hewas admitted in hospital. Thus, it appears that he gavewrong information with the intention to get extension ofleave sanctioned. 14. The disciplinary authority (Commandant, 78thBattalion, CRPF) also noticed that the delinquent claimedto have fallen ill on 04.01.1993 (as per the medicalcertificate produced by him) i.e., the day on which he wassupposed to start his return journey on expiry ofsanctioned leave. The delinquent also failed to produce anyother documents such as cash memo for purchase ofmedicines, prescription, OPD number, investigation report,etc. A person undergoing treatment for jaundice would behaving possession of all these documents, but thedelinquent did not. In fact, during the enquiry he statedthat he does not have any such documents. He wasspecifically directed through telegram dated 12.02.1993 andletter dated 20.03.1993 to submit these documents insupport of his alleged illness/treatment, but he failed toproduce any document except the medical certificate issuedby Dr.T.Palanisamy. The disciplinary authority did notaccept that certificate as sufficient proof in favour ofthe petitioner. The disciplinary authority was of the viewthat the delinquent was not suffering from any disease, butmanaged to obtain a medical certificate to cover up theperiod of overstay of leave. These are findings of fact,and we cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction.15. The learned single Judge has also not interferedwith these finding of facts. However, what he has held isthat the punishment is disproportionate to the charges, andhaving said so, he set aside the impugned order of removaland directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner withbackwages and consequential attendant benefits. He furtherdirected that the writ petitioner would also get his annualincrements from the date of his removal, promotion, etc. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. In our opinion, the punishment imposed on the writpetitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate. It mustbe remembered that in a para-military organization like theCRPF strict discipline has to be maintained, otherwise, theforce cannot function properly. Overstaying leave is a veryserious offence in an armed State organization. Hence, inour opinion, the punishment of removal from service wasrightly imposed by the Commandant and the same calls for nointerference. 17. The Commandant, 78th Battalion, CRPF in his orderdated nil August, 1993 gave detailed reasons as to why themedical certificate issued by Dr.T.Palanisamy has not beenaccepted. It is not for this Court in writ jurisdiction tointerfere with the findings of fact recorded by the enquiryofficer or the disciplinary authority. 18. We do not agree with the learned single Judge thatthe punishment imposed was disproportionate to the offencecommitted. It may be that in civilian service overstayingleave for a few days may not be such a serious offence soas to call for dismissal/removal as the punishment, but inthe armed service or police service it is a very seriousoffence and no leniency is called for nor can be permitted.19. It may be mentioned that initially the writpetitioner had gone on leave in connection with his allegedbrother’s marriage. In the statement before the enquiryofficer he said that he had gone on leave in connectionwith his sister’s marriage. The enquiry officer found thatno marriage, either of brother’s or his sister’s, tookplace during his leave period. This is a finding of factand we cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction.Thus, even the initial obtaining of leave by the petitionerwas on a false pretext. 20. Moreover, even regarding his alleged sickness hedid not produce the relevant documents i.e., cash memo forpurchase of medicines, prescription, OPD number,investigation report, etc. The enquiry officer aftercareful consideration of the oral and documentary evidencerecorded a categorical finding that the writ petitioner wasnot admitted in the hospital as he claimed. He did notproduce any prescription of any doctor. He also admittedduring enquiry that he was not admitted in the hospital.All that he produced was a medical certificate ofDr.T.Palanisamy, which was not accepted. 21. The enquiry officer found both the charged provedand these are findings of fact which cannot be interferedwith in writ jurisdiction. The disciplinary authority foundthat the writ petitioner (respondent in the writ appeal)has acted in a most unbecoming and irresponsible manner andfurther found that the writ petitioner is not a fit personto be retained in a disciplined force like the CRPF. Wefind no reason to interfere with such an order. The CRPF is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a disciplined force where every member of the force isexpected to observe strict discipline. Any act ofindiscipline on the part of any member of the force affectsthe morale and efficiency of the force and therefore it isnecessary to take stern action against such erring members.In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition byrespondents 2 and 3 therein, the full facts have beenstated, and hence we are not repeating the same. It isevident from the facts that the writ petitioner overstayedleave on false grounds, and even the original leave wasobtained by stating false facts. The writ petitionersubmitted only a medical certificate on his return fromleave. The writ petitioner had been specifically directedby the Officer Commanding vide telegram dated 12.02.1993and letter dated 20.03.1993 to send all the documents insupport of his claim of leave, but he did not do so. On theother hand in a reply to the question of the enquiryofficer in the enquiry the writ petitioner stated that hedid not have any such document. From this, the enquiryofficer rightly concluded that the claim of the writpetitioner that he is ill is false. At any event we cannotsit in appeal over the finding in writ jurisdiction.22. In our opinion, the learned single Judge failed toconsider the fact that the writ petitioner was a member ofa disciplined force in which strict discipline wasrequired, and an over liberal approach cannot be accepted.The writ petitioner overstayed leave without priorpermission and failed to comply with the orders of thecompetent authority which is a serious misconduct. 23. In Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India, (2003) 3SCC 309 the Supreme Court held that mere application forgrant of leave cannot be construed to be a properintimation of leave. The Supreme Court noted that there isa prohibition on every member of the force to leave thestation even on holidays without specific permission of theauthorities empowered to grant leave. Such, misconductsclearly bring down the sense of discipline which isrequired to be observed in an armed force. The SupremeCourt also observed that the scope of interference with theorder of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority isvery limited, and unless the punishment appears to beshockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interferewith the same. The Supreme Court referred to its earlierdecisions in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6SCC 749, State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC302, Union of India Vs. G.Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463,Union of India Vs. J.R.Dhiman, (1999) 6 SCC 403, Om KumarVs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, etc. 24. In Director General, RPF Vs. Ch.Sai Babu, (2003) 4SCC 331 the Supreme Court held that the punishment imposedby a disciplinary authority, should normally not bedisturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except when thepunishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. In the present case, in our opinion, thepunishment was not shockingly disproportionate for thereasons already mentioned above. In fact it was theappropriate punishment to a member of a disciplined armedforce. 26. The learned counsel for the respondent-writpetitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Courtin Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi,(2004) 4 SCC 560. We have carefully perused the saiddecision and we feel that the same is distinguishable. Itmay be mentioned that the ratio of a decision can only bededuced after properly examining the facts of the case. InPadmasundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2002 SC 1334(vide para- 8A) the Supreme Court observed that Courtsshould not place reliance on decisions without discussingas to how the factual situation fits in with the factsituation of the decision relied on. 27. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs.N.R.Vairamani, 2004 (5) CTC 74 the Supreme Court observed:-“Observations of Courts are neither to beread as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions ofthe statute and that too taken out of theircontext. These observations must be read in thecontext in which they appear to have beenstated”. 28. In our opinion, one additional or different factin two different cases would make a world of a differencein the conclusions in those two cases. 29. The following words of Lord Denning in the matterof applying precedents have become locus classicus: “Each case depends on its own facts and aclose similarity between one case and another isnot enough because even a single significantdetail may alter the entire aspect. In decidingsuch cases, one should avoid the temptation todecide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching thecolour of one case against the colour of another.To decide therefore, on which side of the line acase falls, the broad resemblance to another caseis not at all decisive. ……….. ……….. ……….. Precedent should be followed only so far asit marks the path of justice, but you must cutthe dead wood and trim off the side branches elseyou will find yourself lost in thickets andbranches. My plea is to keep the path of justiceclear of obstructions which could impede it.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30. In Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya’s Case (supra), the factswere that the appellant was recruited as a constable in theDelhi Police and while undergoing the training he fell downon the parade ground on 07.10.1994. He was sent to thepolice dispensary, but since his condition did not improvehis relatives took him to his home town in Gwalior. Heremained under treatment of government doctors there andsent applications for leave on medical grounds supportedwith the medical certificates from competent medicalauthorities in accordance with the leave rules. Thecompetent police authority passed an order on 16.01.1995sanctioning leave without pay for the period of his illnessfrom 07.10.1994 to 14.12.1994. According to the appellantsince the competent authority had granted leave, thequestion of issuing any charge sheet subsequently forunauthorized absence for the same period would not arise.On 15.11.1994, notice of termination from service wasissued stating that his services shall stand terminatedwith effect from the date of expiry of a period of onemonth from the date notice is received by the appellant.The appellant resumed duty on 15.12.1994 after submittingfitness certificate from the dispensary in Gwalior, wherehe had taken treatment. The service of the appellant wasterminated with effect from 31.12.1994 under Rule 5 Clause(1) of the Temporary Service Rules. On 16.01.1995, thecompetent authority sanctioned leave without pay for hisillness from 07.10.1994 to 14.12.1994 after the receipt ofthe termination order. The appellant made a representationfor reinstatement. After a gap of more than 4 months, theCommissioner of Police reinstated him in service forthwithwith the provision that the intervening period from01.01.1995 till he was reinstated will be decided at thetime of finalisation of his disciplinary enquiry. Theappellant resumed service after the reinstatement orderdated 25.05.1995. However, he again fell ill and was onleave for several days on medical grounds and was grantedleave by the respondents. On 24.07.1995 a disciplinaryenquiry was initiated against the appellant under the DelhiPolice (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. After theenquiry he was removed from service. 31. In the above case, the Supreme Court was of theview that the punishment of removal from service wasdisproportionate, since medical leave in fact had beensanctioned to the appellant therein, and he had suppliedall material in respect of his claim for medical leave. TheSupreme Court observed that the High Court had notappreciated the fact that medical leave had been sanctionedto the appellant. It was on those facts that the SupremeCourt held in that case that the punishment wasdisproportionate to the misconduct committed. 32.In our opinion, the facts of Shri Bhagwan LalArya’s Case (Supra) are totally different from the facts ofthe present case. In the case on hand, the leave was notsanctioned for the period for which the writ petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (respondent in Writ Appeal) overstayed leave. Rather, itwas found by the enquiry officer that not only his claimfor medical leave was false, even the original leavegranted to him was based on the false claim that he had toattend his brother/sister’s marriage. Thus, we find thatthe decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan Lal AryaCase (Supra) is clearly distinguishable and it does nothelp the writ petitioner. 33. In M.Vallavaraj Vs. The Deputy Inspector General,CISF, (2005) 2 MLJ 152 a Division Bench of this Courtobserved that any leniency in the order of punishment of apolice constable in the CISF would be doing an act whichcould demoralise the strict discipline of the force. Werespectfully agree with the view taken in the aforesaiddecision. 34. For the reasons given above, this writ appeal isallowed. The impugned order of the learned single Judge isset aside, and the order of removal passed by the 3rdrespondent in the writ petition (3rd appellant in the writappeal) removing the writ petitioner (respondent in thewrit appeal) from the services of CRPF is affirmed. Nocosts. sm Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar1. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Director-General of Police, CRPF, New Delhi.3. The Commandant, 78, Battalion, CRPF, Police Line Ropar, Punjab. +1 cc to Mr.S. Mani kumar, SCGSC,(SR 35476)+1 cc to Mr.M. Md. Ibrahim Ali, (SR 35684)NG(CO)rvr W.A.No.1495 of 1998