I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 12.06.2007, passed, in WP(C) No. 8954/ 2004, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge, while not interfering with the findings of guilt reached against the writ petitioner-respondent, directed imposition of any punishment save and except dismissal from service. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bora, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, for the writ petitioner-respondent.

2. While considering the present appeal, let us take note of the three Articles of Charges, whereunder the writ petitioner faced a disciplinary proceeding. The Articles of Charges read as under :

ARTICLE-I. That No. 921240598 Ct/GD Arfan Ali of HQ Coy 104 BN RAF, CRPF, committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 in that he overstayed leave w.e.f. 27.05.2002 to 15.08.2002 without leave or permission from the competent authority which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.

ARTICLE-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, No. 921240598 Ct/GD Arfan Ali of HQ Coy 104 BN RAF, CRPF, is guilty of disobedience of orders in that he failed to respond to the official communication made with him by the Commandant, 104 BN RAF CRPF which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.

ARTICLE-III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, No. 921240598 Ct/GD Arfan Ali of HQ Coy 104 BN RAF, CRPF, is guilty of remissness in the discharge of his duties in that he is habitual of overstaying leave which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.

3. The petitioner did not respond to the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary enquiry was accordingly held ex parte and the petitioner, having been found guilty of the charges framed against him, was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was also dismissed by order, dated 15.09.2004, with the observation that no good reasons for interference with the order of dismissal could be shown by the petitioner and that the order of dismissal was passed after according full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. As the appeal did not evoke any favourable result, the petitioner put the findings of guilt and also the punishment of dismissal from service, passed against him, to challenge by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 8954/ 2004. The learned Single Judge, as already indicated above, has directed the appellants to impose a punishment on the petitioner other than dismissal from service.

5. While considering the present appeal, it is necessary to bear in mind that the learned Single Judge has clearly recorded that as far as findings of guilt against the petitioner are concerned, the same are not interfered with.

6. In the backdrop of the charges on which the petitioner faced the disciplinary proceeding, whether punishment of dismissal from service could have been interfered with, in exercise of this Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, is, therefore, the question raised in the present appeal.

7. While considering the above aspect of the matter, it needs to be pointed out that the learned Single Judge, has reached the conclusion that since the petitioner had faced disciplinary proceedings on the charges, which called for, at best, imposition of punishment as prescribed by Section 10 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, (in short, 'the CRPF Act'), no punishment, other than what have been prescribed by Section 10, could have been imposed on the petitioner- respondent. It is also specifically held by the learned Single Judge that Section 11 does not empower imposition of punishment of dismissal from service and what Section 11