Birendra Pd. Verma, J.The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness and legality of the final order dated 18th May, 2011 (Annexure-6) passed by the disciplinary authority viz. Senior Commandant, CISF, ASG, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata, whereby he has inflicted punishment of removal from service of the petitioner with immediate effect for the charges proved against her. The petitioner has also assailed the validity and correctness of the appellate order dated 13th September, 2011 (Annexure-7) passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Kolkata and the revisional order dated 21st May. 2012 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent-Inspector General/APS, whereby the appeal and revision respectively filed on behalf of the petitioner against the original order passed by the disciplinary authority have been dismissed and order of punishment awarded against the petitioner has been affirmed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lady Constable under Central Industrial Security Force (in short CISF) in accordance with the provisions contained in the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 fin short CISF Act) and the rules framed thereunder, namely, the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (in short CISF Rules). After her appointment on the post of Lady Constable, the petitioner was posted at CISF Unit, ASG, Silchar Airport and there she was performing her duty with all sincerity and devotion. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was transferred by order dated 30th June, 2010 issued by the competent authority and she was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit ASG Raipur Airport, where she claims to have joined the post on 17.7.2010. However, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding for her unauthorized absence from duty for the period from 17.7.2010 to 2.10.2010 i.e., for 76 days and she has been visited with the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders primarily on two grounds. Firstly, he has submitted that before passing the final order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure-6) inflicting the major punishment of removal from service, the requirements of Rule 36(15) of the CISF Rules have not been complied with. The petitioner was not granted liberty to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the department by the Presenting Officer. Therefore, according to him, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law. Secondly, it has been submitted that even if the charges have been proved against the petitioner, the quantum of punishment awarded against the petitioner is excessive and disproportionate to the charges proved. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders impugned are required to be set aside by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has supported the impugned orders.

4. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that while the petitioner was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit, ASG. Raipur, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her under Rule 36 of CISF Rules. Memorandum of charges dated 22.11.2010 was served upon the delinquent-petitioner on 26.11.2010. She filed her written statement of defence on 9.12.2010, which was after the expiry of prescribed time, yet it was accepted and she was allowed to participate in the departmental enquiry. One Sri R.K. Heddenavar, Inspector of CISF was appointed as Enquiry Officer and one Sri Anup Kumar Das, S.I. of CISF was appointed as Presenting Officer.

5. In the departmental inquiry initiated two charges were framed against the petitioner. First charge was that she was absent from her duty without leave w.e.f. 17.7.2010 to 2.10.2010 and she, being a member of disciplined force, has committed a misconduct of gross negligence and indiscipline. The second charge was that during her short span of three years of service, she was inflicted minor punishments twice for her unauthorized absence and desertion with a hope that she will mend herself and she will improve her conduct for continuing in disciplined service of CISF. As stated above, charge memorandum was received by the delinquent on 26.11.2010. She submitted her written statement of defence on 9.12.2010, which was beyond the stipulated time limit. However, in order to follow the rules of natural justice, her written statement was accepted. In her written statement she accepted the charges framed against her. However, on sympathetic ground due to illness of her son she pleaded for her exoneration.

6. In the departmental enquiry altogether six P.Ws. were produced to prove the charges against the delinquent. Nevertheless, despite opportunity given, she has chosen not to produce even a single witness in support of her case, though she participated in the inquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.4.2011 to the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner on 20.4.2011. In response thereof she submitted her written representation dated 28.4.2011 wherein she has once again accepted all the charges framed against her and did not point out any legal infirmity in the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. By taking into consideration the materials available on record and after following the procedure prescribed under the CISF Act and CISF Rules, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, Senior Commandant, CISF, ASG, NSCBIA, Kolkata passed the impugned final order dated 18th May, 2011 inflicting the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect against the petitioner. A copy of the impugned final order was served upon the petitioner and she was given liberty to prefer appeal against the aforesaid order of punishment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned original order of punishment preferred appeal before the Dy. Inspector General, CISF, Kolkata. The respondent Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Kolkata has passed a speaking order considering all the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner and finally by his impugned appellate order dated 13th September, 2011 (Annexure-7), he has rejected the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and has affirmed the original order of punishment.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision application, which was finally heard and rejected by the impugned revisional order dated 21.5.2012 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent Inspector General of CISF. Learned Revisional Authority has considered and discussed each of the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner and, thereafter, has finally rejected the revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner. The conclusions arrived at by the revisional authority has been summarized in paragraph-7 of the impugned order dated 21st May, 2012, which is reproduced hereinbelow:--

The revision petition of the petitioner and the relevant documents have been gone through in detail. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend the charges levelled against her. The DE has been conducted as per laid down procedure. Personnel of an armed force of the Union are expected to maintain an extremely high standard of discipline and personal conduct. But the petitioner has failed to maintain such desirable standards and remained AWL at her own volition. There is no denying the fact that every human being and every member of Force has personal & family problems, but in an armed Force of the Union, they need to remain within the boundaries of discipline and exhibit high standards of conduct. If every personnel starts going away without leave due to personal problems, the Force cannot be run, nor can effective security be ensured. If, she had personal problem and issues related to her child, she should have approached the seniors for leave. She violated all norms of a disciplined Force. She was given mild punishments for similar misconducts in the past, but instead of learning and mending her ways, she made the misconduct a habit. This can not be allowed in a disciplined Force and a message needs to be sent not only to the petitioner but also to other members of the Force. Though. I am sympathetic towards her, owing to the gravity and seriousness of the charges and its impact on the general discipline and larger functioning of the Force, I am disinclined to show leniency, hence, the revision petition of the petitioner is, considered and rejected being devoid of merit.

(Emphasis supplied)

8. Admittedly, the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force like CISF. She was posted at CISF Unit, ASG, Raipur. She was required to discharge a very sensitive duty at the airport. The duty by CISF personnel at an airport involves the security of, not only of the airport, but a large number of the passengers landing and boarding in aircrafts at that Airport, besides other airport personnel. Since, the petitioner was required to discharge such a sensitive duty, she could not have absented without valid and sanctioned leave by the competent authority for 76 long days. This Court further finds that as a matter of fact, she has admitted the charge of her unauthorized absence from duty. Whatever pleas she has taken regarding her family problems or illness of her family members, she could not have deserted the duty without sanction of leave. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 36(15) of the CISF Rules was not followed, appears to be completely misconceived and contrary to record. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding and yet if she has chosen not to cross-examine the P.Ws., then such pleas cannot be permitted to be raised subsequently for assailing the orders of punishment. Admittedly, she had chosen not to produce even a single witness in support of her case. All the three authorities have concurrently held that the rules prescribed under CISF Rules were strictly followed and the petitioner has admitted the charges. This is also not in dispute that prior to the present disciplinary proceeding she was subjected to disciplinary proceeding twice earlier for similar charges, where minor punishments were awarded to the petitioner, but she has failed to improve her conduct. Taking into consideration the gravity of charges, the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive in the factual background of the case. No other legal issue was raised on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the impugned orders of punishment.

9. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any scope for interference while exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.