Heard Mr. J. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by the learned CGC, Mr. K.K. Parasar.

2. The challenge here is to the office order dated 26.7.2011 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner who served for 14 years as Constable (GD), in the 20th Battalion of the CRPF was struck off, w.e.f. 26.7.2011, on the basis of purported resignation, tendered by the constable on the previous date i.e. 25.7.2011.

3.1. The discharge order is challenged firstly on the ground that it was not a case of voluntary resignation but was forced upon the constable by the Commandant, after he was punished with quarter guard and was beaten mercilessly and hung upside with tied arms and legs, in the confinement of the quarter guard.

3.2. The failure of the employer to take into account the operational men power requirement of the CRPF Battalion, deployed in the insurgency prone area, for allowing immediate discharge of the constable, is the next ground, for challenge to the discharge order.

3.3. The learned counsel Mr. J. Roy refers to the provisions of Sections 5 & 6, of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CRPF Act ’) and the Schedule to the Act and also Rule 16 & 17 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CRPF Rules ’), to argue that 3 months notice is mandatory for discharge of the constable, serving on substantive status and since resignation was accepted forthwith, there is breach of the procedure, prescribed by the CRPF Act and the CRPF Rules.

3.4. The petitioner refers to the Guideline formulated by the Director General, CRPF on 17.5.1990, to lay down the procedure for acceptance of resignation and it is argued that mere resignation letter is insufficient to issue the discharge order and the constable must be explained the likely hardship which he will face, on being rendered jobless. Furthermore, an undertaking on the counseling given about the consequences of the discharge order, must also be secured before discharge is affected.

4.1. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Central Govt. counsel refers to the resignation letter of the constable and also his undertaking dated 26.7.2011, to project that the petitioner was facing serious family and personal difficulties and was bent upon leaving the organization and therefore the Commandant considered it appropriate to allow the discharge, rather than keeping an unwilling person attached to the Battalion.

4.2. The learned CGC refers to the Decipher Sheet, with the endorsement of the Adjutant and the Commandant of the 20th CRPF Battalion, to project that the constable was given adequate counseling to withdraw the resignation but since the individual was adamant, the Commandant was left with no choice but to discharge the constable.

4.3. On the issue of three months notice, Mr. Parasar reads Rule 56 (1-A)(b) of the Fundamental Rules, to project that relaxation of the notice period is permitted, subject to certain conditions, laid down in Sub-clause (b) to Rule 56 (1-A) of F.R.

5. Under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, discharge on three months’ notice for quasi permanent constable is permitted but the appointing authority is obliged to permit resignation, only for good and sufficient reason, under Sub-Rule (d) of Rule 16. The discharge of CRPF constable is made subject to the Schedule appended to the CRPF Act, which also mandates a notice period for acceptance of resignation from CRPF personnel. That apart, before resignation is accepted, the authority under the applicable Guideline of 17.5.1990, must explain in detail about the likely hardship, the constable will face after his discharge and an undertaking about the counseling must be retained in the Battalion record.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate now to extract Rule 17 of the CRPF Rules, the Schedule to the CRPF Act and the Guidelines issued by the Director General, CRPF on 17.5.1990, to ap