ARUIT PASAYAT, J:- 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 ORDER OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE PASSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES IN TERMS OF SECTION 11 (1) OF THE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ACT, 1949 (IN SHORT "THE ACT") READ WITH RULE 27 OF THE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE 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 18-1-1992 WHICH WAS SANCTIONED. HE REPORTED FOR DUTY LONG AFTER THE SANCTIONED LEAVE PERIOD WAS OVER ON 8-12-1992. 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 21-61993 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 THE 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 B 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 D SPITE OF SERVICE.

4. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 11 AND RULE 27 HAS BEEN CALLED FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS APPEAL. A FEW PROVISIONS HAVING RELEVANCE NEED TO BE NOTED. UNDISPUTEDLY, OVERSTAY WITHOUT SANCTIONED LEAVE IS DEALT WITH IN SECTION 10(M) OF THE ACT. IT RELATES TO LESSER OFFENCES. SECTION 11(1) AND RULE 27 READ AS FOLLOWS:

"11. MINOR PUNISHMENTS.-(1) THE COMMANDANT OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY OR OFFICER AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, MAY, SUBJECT TO ANY RULES MADE UNDER THIS ACT, AWARD IN LIEU OF, OR IN ADDITION TO, SUSPENSION OR DISMISSAL ANYONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PUNISHMENTS TO ANY MEMBER OF THE FORCE WHOM HE CONSIDERS TO BE GUILTY OF DISOBEDIENCE, NEGLECT OF DUTY, OR REMISSNESS IN THE DISCHARGE OF ANY DUTY OR OF OTHER MISCONDUCT IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE FORCE, THAT IS TO SAY,

(A) REDUCED IN RANK;

(B) FINE OF ANY AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING ONE MONTHS PAY AND ALLOWANCES;

(C) CONFINEMENT TO QUARTERS, LINES OR CAMP FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING ONE MONTH;

(D) CONFINEMENT IN THE QUARTER GUARD FOR NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS, WITH OR WITHOUT PUNISHMENT DRILL OR EXTRA GUARD, FATIGUE OR OTHER DUTY; AND.

(E) REMOVAL FROM ANY OFFICE OF DISTINCTION OR SPECIAL EMOLUMENT IN THE FORCE." (UNDERLINED FOR EMPHASIS)

"27. PROCEDURE FOR THE AWARD OF PUNISHMENT.-(A) THE PUNISHMENTS SHOWN AS ITEMS 1 TO 11 IN COLUMN 2 OF THE TABLE BELOW MAY BE INFLICTED ON NON-GAZETTED OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE VARIOUS RANKS SHOWN IN EACH OF THE HEADINGS OF COLUMNS 3 TO 6, BY THE AUTHORITIES NAMED BELOW SUCH HEADINGS UNDER THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN COLUMN 7:

TABLE

SL. NO.PUNISHMENT

SUB INSPECTOR

1.

2 DISMISSAL OR REMOVAL FROM THE FORCE.

2. REDUCTION TO A LOWER TIMESCALE OF PAY, GRADE, POST OR SERVICE.

3. REDUCTION TO A LOWER S