The legal provisions of CRPF Act, 1949 and CRPF Act, 1955 were interpreted to determine the justness of the punishment and the treatment of the period of absence from duty.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 08.02.2017 to the extent respondents have imposed major penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect w.e.f. 31.01.2006 to 19.02.2017, which period has been directed to be treated as dies non. A direction is sought to the respondents to convert the major penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect with minor penalty proportionate to his offence and further grant him all consequential benefits regularizing his period from 31.1.2006 to 19.2.2017.

2. The petitioner- Jagannath Naik claims to have been enrolled in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 10.04.1991 as Constable (GD) and served in various units/battalions with unblemished record. The petitioner further claims to have received a telephonic call from his brother on 19.02.2005 in respect of his mother's deteriorating mental health and the fact of bringing her to Ranchi for treatment. The petitioner claims to have brought this fact to the notice of his immediate superior and obtained verbal permission to go Ranchi. For this reason, petitioner could not be present during the fall-in at 14.30 hours and also for the evening Roll Call on the said day. Before petitioner could report back to his duty after visiting Ranchi on 19.2.2005, he was illegally apprehended by the Police of Excise Department, Jamshedpur at 20.40 hours at the Highway of Ranchi-Jamshedpur near Kali Mandir, Jamshedpur with alleged 9 cartoons of illicit foreign liquor costing about Rs.56,000/-. Petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 19.2.2005 and a criminal case under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act was registered against him. Thereby, petitioner could not report back and present in the unit on 19.02.2005 till 20.09.2005. During this period, the respondents placed the petitioner under suspension and a departmental enquiry was held against him.

3. Pursuant to his release on bail, the petitioner claims to have reported to the Unit and participated in the domestic enquiry. On finalization of the enquiry, the Commandant, 106 Bn., RAF vide order dated 31.1.2006 imposed the major penalty of `dismissal from service' w.e.f. 30.1.2006 upon the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved against his dismissal from service, petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules before the DIG, RAF, New Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.06.2006. The petitioner claims to have challenged the orders dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Commandant as well as order dated 07.6.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority by invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The said writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6244/2006 was dismissed on 21.11.2006, with liberty to the petitioner to seek a revision before the Inspector General under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules. The said revision was dismissed on 28.08.2007.

5. According to petitioner, during the period from 19.02.2005 till 20.09.2005 he was in judicial custody. The First Class Judicial Magistrate after appreciating the evidence placed on record, vide order and judgment dated 29.07.2009, acquitted the petitioner holding that prosecution had failed to establish the charges framed against him. Thereafter, petitioner once again invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand by filing W.P.(S) No. 4876/2009 seeking reinstatement in service with all consequent benefits; thereby, seeking quashing of his dismissal order dated 31.1.2006 issued by the Commandant and order dated 07.6.2006, whereby his appeal was rejected. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and the High Court of Jharkhand vide order dated 25.4.2016 gave liberty to the petitioner to file afresh revision petition under Rule 29 of CRPF Rule, 1955 before the competent authority.

6. Subsequently, petitioner preferred a revision petition under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules before the Inspector General of Police on the ground tha