1. Petitioner admittedly was appointed as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1998. On 19.12.2007, deserted leaving behind the arms and ammunition visited home then reported back on 29.12.2007. The departmental enquiry as conducted culminated in passing order dated 09.01.2009, where-under the petitioner has been dismissed from services by respondent No.4. Aggrieved thereof instant petition has been preferred.

2. The first contention is that the order impugned has been passed while having recourse to Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules 1955 which does not provide for punishment of dismissal or removal from service, therefore, has been passed without jurisdiction.

3. This contention has to be rejected. No doubt the heading of Section 11 i.e. "Minor Punishments" is not in consonance with the text of the provisions of the Section. The Section itself envisages that the Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under the Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to suspension or dismissal any one or more of the prescribed punishments.

4. The various punishments as prescribed can be awarded in addition to dismissal so to say that the Section 11 does not authorize inflicting punishment of dismissal, is totally misplaced.

5. Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act absolutely authorizes the authority concerned to award dismissal from service as well. Same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court while rendering judgment in Union Of India and ors v. Showkat Ali Cheechi in LPA 197/2006. Furthermore, same view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohammad Bhat reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228.

6. Awarding punishment of dismissal as envisaged by Section 11(1) of CRPF Act is controlled by one situation i.e. the departmental enquiry has to be conducted. The record as is available on the file would clearly indicate that the departmental enquiry has been conducted through respondent No.5. Though order is recorded in Hindi version but its English version has been got prepared by the petitioner as is available on file, same clearly indicates that the petitioner has participated in the departmental enquiry. He has also pleaded guilty to the charge as has been leveled against him, despite that, Enquiry Officer (respondent no.5) has recorded the statement of the witnesses. Petitioner has been given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Statement of the petitioner has also been recorded, he has been given chance to produce the documents, if any, in support of his defence.

7. The stance of the petitioner before enquiry officer as made mention of in the said order is that when he had received telephone call from his home to the effect that fire has broke out in the Arms Depot Khandru, near his home and inhabitants of the area include his family has been asked to vacate from the concerned area which prompted him to move the application for grant of casual leave when the same was not sanctioned, he informed the Assistant Commandant that in case leave is not granted, he will leave as deserter this way he left leaving his arms on his bed. Then after a gap of 10 days returned back.

8. When the enquiry was completed, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority who has furnished copy of the report to the petitioner so as to enable him to say anything as against the report within 15 days. The petitioner in response on 19.01.2009 had repelled by stating that fire broke out in the Anns Depot Khandroo, Anantnag, in view thereof army had issued orders to the Villagers living in the area of 40 sq km to vacate from their houses as they fall in the danger zone. It was this information which was received by the petitioner, got worried and immediately requested the Assistant Commandant for two days leave when same was not sanctioned, he had left for his home for this act, he was gi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document