SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. During 10 years of service, petitioner – a safai karamchari attached to HQr-103 RAF, CRPF had overstayed leave 7 times. The 7th time he had overstayed leave by 36 days, when a week’s leave was granted to him on account of illness of his wife. After availing of 7 days leave petitioner was to report on 26.12.1997 for duty but he had reported back on 30.01.1998.

2. For unauthorisedly overstaying leave, a memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner on 17.2.1998. The Article of Charge reads as under:-

ARTICLE-I

'That the said No.880700169 S/K Kaluwa Balmiki of this Unit (HQr-103 RAF) while functioning as S/K in HQr 103 RAF, CRPF has committed an act of misconduct/disobedience in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules 1955 in that hehad overstayed from casual leave with effect from 26.12.97 FN to 30.1.98 AN without permission of the competent authority and sufficient cause, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force and thus unbecoming of a Govt.Servant.'

3. At the commencement of the Departmental Inquiry, petitioner had pleaded guilty to the aforesaid charge before the Inquiry Officer – Niyazu Khan, Asstt.Comdt. and had also sought an opportunity to produce documentary proof in support of his justification for overstaying leave i.e. the medical certificate pertaining to ailment of his wife. At the inquiry, the evidence led was of HC Bachu Singh, HC Baldev Raj Sharma, HC Diwan Singh and HC Manbir Singh, who had deposed in respect of copy of leave and duty certificate issued to the petitioner on 17.12.1997, leave application of the petitioner and copy of head quarter letter of 5.1.1998.

4. Petitioner in his defence had placed on record his explanation dated 20.02.1998 for overstaying leave, medical certificate of 8.1.1998 and another medical certificate of even date issued by ‘Shri Devi Homoeo Hospital’and undated certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Panchayat of the petitioner’s village stating that the petitioner had overstayed leave because of the illness of his wife and the petitioner should be pardoned for it. Inquiry Officer in his report dated 11.7.1998 concluded that on the basis of the evidence on record, the petitioner had misconducted by unauthorisedly overstaying leave. Disciplinary Authority vide its order of 26.9.1998 had imposed penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner against which an appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed on 5.1.1999.

5. The impugned order of removal from service was sought to be assailed before us directly on the ground of the penalty being grossly disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner being unable to seek extension of leave. It was sought to be highlighted that similarly placed employee Smt. Geeta Sharma has been visited with a lesser penalty than the one inflicted upon the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it was highlighted that the case of another employee Smt.Geeta Sharma was on a different footing than that of the petitioner.

6. Undisputedly, every case is decided on its own merit. It needs to be noted that the petitioner has been unable to substantiate his stand of being unable to seek extension of leave or for informing the concerned authorities about the persistent serious illness of his wife. The Disciplinary Authority is right in maintaining that indiscipline in Armed Forces cannot be tolerated. Needless to state that where a delinquent commits repetitive acts of delinquency; and of the same kind, it is a case of obstinate and incorrigible behaviour and the past conduct can always be considered by the disciplinary authority in imposing the penalty.

7. Pertinently, petitioner had earlier also over-stayed leave on no less than six occasions. This was the 7th occasion when the petitioner had again over stayed leave without seeking extension of leave. During the inquiry, the petitioner had tried to wriggle out of the aforesaid irresponsible conduct of not informing the authorities concerned that he is unable to return back to duty and had not sought extension of leave either by writing a letter or by sending a telegram, by simply asserting that the petitioner was unable to do so. Why he was unable to do so, has not been disclosed by the petitioner.

8. The three documents which the petitioner had relied upon at the inquiry to justify overstaying leave are the medical certificate of 8.1.1998 (Annexure-I), another medical certificate of even date from Shiv Devi Homoeo Hospital (Annexure-J), and undated certificate from the Sarpanch of petitioner’s village Panchayat (Annexure-K). It appears from the medical certificate of 8.1.1998 (Annexure-I) that petitioner’s wife was suffering from chronic colitis from 23.12.1997 and 15 day’s rest was advised to her. Strangely, on the same very day, petitioner had obtained another medical certificate from Shiv Devi Homoeo Hospital (Annexure-J) which disclosed that petitioner’s wife was suffering from dysentery with fever and she was advised rest for 19 days succeeding the date of the certificate. This appears to be quite strange that the petitioner had obtained these two certificates on the same very day i.e. one for a period prior to the date of issue of the certificate and another, for the period post this certificate. The authenticity of these certificates has been rightly doubted by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order as for the ailment of dysentery with fever, bed rest is normally advised for a week or so and not particularly for 19 days. In fact it appears that the petitioner had managed to obtain these two certificates to cover up the period of overstaying his leave. At the inquiry, petitioner has not substantiated these two medical certificates with the prescription slips to indicate as to what medicines were taken by his wife and if at all, if during the intervening period of 36 days, petitioner had got her wife medically examined from any of these doctors. Normally, for ailment like dysentry with fever, it is seldom that people go to Homeopathic doctor particularly after first obtaining medical treatment from an allopathic doctor.

9. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid narration, while sustaining the impugned order holding the petitioner guilty of unauthorisedly overstaying leave, on the question of penalty imposed we find tha

t the penalty of removal from service is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed, as the incorrigible conduct of the petitioner overstaying leave on one pretext or the other, needs to be deprecated and any misplaced leniency shown to the petitioner would adversely impact upon the discipline of Central Reserve Police Force. 10. Finding that the impugned order is not resulting in any kind of miscarriage of justice nor is found to be violative of any principle of natural justice, we refrain from substituting the penalty imposed with a lesser one in exercise of judicial review jurisdiction. 11. This petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs as the petitioner has already lost his job.