ORDER :

1. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Departmental enquiry was instituted against him under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the CRPF Rules’) in which he was charge-sheeted alleging firstly, that during the subsistence of first marriage, he has entered into second married without prior permission of the Department and secondly, that he remained absent without leave from 1-12-2006 to 8-12-2006, and thirdly, that at the instance of second wife, charge for offence under Section 498A of the IPC was levelled against him which is an act of misconduct. The disciplinary authority after full-fledged enquiry, by order dated 2-8-2007, dismissed the petitioner from service against which he preferred appeal and the appellate authority by its order dated 30-10-2007, partly allowed the appeal and held that charge No.1 with regard to entering into second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage has not been proved and further held in respect to 3rd charge that since the petitioner has already been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, therefore, this charge is also not proved, but, the charge of remaining absent from duty from 1-12-2006 to 8-12-2006 was found proved and the appellate authority converted the dismissal of service to penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect feeling aggrieved against which revision has been preferred under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules which has been dismissed by order dated 29-4-2008.

2. Mr. K.A. Ansari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the appellate authority has clearly found that two charges against the petitioner i.e. entering into second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage and offence under Section 498A of the IPC reported against the petitioner, are not proved; and only found that the charge of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty for seven days i.e. from 1-12-2006 to 8-12-2006, is proved, and further, the appellate authority has also regularized the petitioner by declaring his absence as dies non, yet, inflicted the penalty of major punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, and that fact has not been considered by the revisional authority and the impugned order has been passed which is liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would oppose the writ petition and support the impugned order and submit that the revisional authority is justified in dismissing the revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. True it is that the petitioner’s dismissal from service inflicted by the disciplinary authority finding three charges to be proved was set aside by the appellate authority and the appellate authority not only set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service holding that charges No.1 & 3 are not proved and only the charge that the petitioner remained absent for a period of seven days from 1-12-2006 to 8-12-2006, has been found proved. It is also true that the said period of unauthorised absence of the petitioner from duty has been declared as dies non by the appellate authority in para 7 of the order and further held that he will not be entitled for any further pay and allowances during the suspension period, however, thereafter, also inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect which is major penalty.

6. The question to be considered by the revisional authority was, whether for bare absence of seven days from 1-12-2006 to 7-12- 2006, infliction of majority penalty that is stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, that is major penalty, is justified? However, it would be appropriate to ext