H.N. Sarma, J.

1. The appellant, being unsuccessful in the Writ Petition No. 237 of 2003, which was dismissed on 24.9.2004 by the learned Single Judge, has approached this Court again by filing this writ appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. A. Lodh, learned Assistant SGI for the Union of India/respondents.

3. The pleaded case of the appellant is that the he was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and while he was serving at Amarpur, Thpura, the respondents drew up a departmental proceeding against him and framed three articles of charges against him. The appellant denied the charges and submitted his reply. The authority conducted the departmental enquiry against him as per rules. After completion of the inquiry, the charges framed against the appellant having been found established, the enquiry report with the proceeding was forwarded to the disciplinary authority-respondent No. 4, who in turn asked the appellant to submit his representation, if so desired against the finding of the enquiry office. The appellant filed a written representation before the authority against the inquiry report. However, disciplinary authority accepting the inquiry report, in exercise of power under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 inflicted the penalty of dismissal against the appellant from service vide order dated 19.2.2003. Against the said order, the appellant though filed a departmental appeal, the same also came to be rejected. Challenging the order of dismissal and the proceeding itself, the appellant filed the instant writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order by the learned Single Judge.

4. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior judge counsel submits that the particulars of charges leveled against the appellant having categorized under the category of less heinous offence as provided under Section 10 of the CRPF Act, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot sustain against the appellant. In this connection, the learned senior counsel has also relied on the observation of the learned Single Judge at para 6 wherein it has been held that "Admittedly, the petitioner has been charged with less heinous offence as adumbrated in Section 10 of the Act, the punishments for which are enumerated in Section 11 of the Act." As the appellant was charged for a less heinous offence, the penalty of dismissal applying the provisions of Section 11 of the Act is not applicable, contended by Mr. Talapatra. According to the learned senior counsel, the provisions of Section 11 has been misinterpreted and misapplied in the instant case. It is further contended that the appellant not being sentenced to imprisonment, he is also not liable to be dismissed from service under Section 12 of the Act and the learned Single Judge failed to note these vital aspects of the matter. The learned senior counsel referring to the decision reported in State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Tarun Kumar Sen Gupta and Anr. AIR 1974 Cal. 39 submits that the Section 9 of the Act deals with more heinous offences whereas Section 10 deals with less heinous offences and Section 11 prescribes for minor punishments. The decision rendered in Deen Dayal v. D.I.G. of Police, CRPF 1974 LAB. IC 929 relied on by the learned Single Judge is sought to be distinguished submitting that on a proper and harmonious construction of the provisions of Sections 9, 10, 11and 12 of the Act for commission of an offence categorized as less heinous offence, punishment of dismissal cannot be awarded.

5. Mr. A. Lodh, learned Assistant SG stiffly refutes the arguments advanced by Mr. Talapatra referring to the charges leveled against the appellant and submits that the article Nos. I and II of the charges clearly attract the provision of Section 9 of the Act, as contained in Clauses (e) and (i), as