UNION OF INDIA Vs. GULAM MOHD BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is by the Union of India and its functionaries to the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High court holding that the older of removal from service passed by the departmental authorities in terms of Section 11 (1) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short the 'act') read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police rules, 1955 (in short the 'rules') is without jurisdiction.

(2.) The background facts need to be noted in brief: the respondent as a Constable in Central reserve Police Force (in short 'crpf') joined the duty at Srinagar after being detailed for duty from Assam along with a group of fresh trainees. He applied for leave on 18th January, 1992 which was sanctioned. He reported for duty long after the sanctioned leave period was over on 8th December, 1992. Departmental proceedings were initiated for misconduct on account of overstay beyond sanctioned leave for 315 days without prior permission or sanction from the competent authority. On 21.6.1993 on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, the competent authority passed order of removal from service. The same was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. By impugned order dated 5.8.1997 a learned single Judge held that since the respondent was proceeded against in terms of Section 10 (m) of the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules, the order of removal is without jurisdiction. It was observed that Section 10 (m) only provided for minor punishment and did not provide for the punishment of removal from service. Accordingly the order of removal was quashed but, however, liberty was given to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

(3.) Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the High Court is clearly indefensible. It was submitted that Section 11 did not provide for only minor punishment. It provided that the enumerated punishments were in lieu of or in addition to order of suspension or dismissal as the case may be. Rule 27 clearly permitted the order of removal from service and no interference by the High Court was called for. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service.