Procedural irregularities and violation of procedural safeguards rendered the removal order illegal, leading to the direction for reinstatement and initiation of de novo Departmental proceedings.

1. Heard Mr. P. S. Chandel, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC), appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. The respondent herein was a Constable working in the establishment of Central Reserve Police Force under respondent no. 4, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Sector-5, Chandigarh. He was granted leave for a period of one month from 8.1.1994 to 6.2.1994. After availing the sanctioned leave he overstayed and in the result he remained absent from duty with effect from 2.4.1994 to 4.4.1995. In view of the above un-authorized absence, he was asked to show cause and, eventually a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short `the Rules’), framed under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short, `the Act’), wherein the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of misconduct and indiscipline, as a member of the Force. Accordingly, he was removed from service in terms of Section 11 (1) of the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules.

3. Assailing this removal order, the respondent as the writ petitioner initiated the instant writ proceedings before the Writ Court alleging inter alia that :

i. the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent was based on irregularities, infirmities, perversity and the same was in flagrant contravention of the procedure prescribed in Rule 27 of the Rules;

ii. the medical certificate, being the vital and valid document to prove the ailment he had been suffering, issued by the Government Doctor of Public Health Centre from his area, was disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer in flimsy grounds not permitted by law;

iii. punishment of removal for the alleged offence of unauthorized leave is absolutely excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed by him.

4. Countering all these allegations, the appellant-Union of India filed an affidavit wherein it denied all averments made by the respondent claiming that the respondent was all along given reasonable and adequate opportunities during the entire departmental inquiry and the entire procedure as stipulated under Rule 27 of the Rules, was duly complied with and there was no deviation from the said Rules in dealing with the case of the respondent in the departmental proceeding.

5. The Writ Court, having considered the entire aspect, came to the finding that the impugned removal order of the respondent was not provided under Section 11 (i) of the Act, as Section 11 (1)(e) of the Act does not prescribe removal from service, and, accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with the direction that the respondent should be reinstated with all consequential benefits minus monetary benefits.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Writ Court, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred before this Court by the Union of India, basically, pleading the sole point that the entire approach of the Writ Court to the issue involved was wrong and in contrary to the provision of law.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Chandel, learned CGSC, has contended that removal of the respondent was not ordered under Section 11 (1) of the Act, which was relied upon by the Writ Court but the respondent was removed from service only under Rule 27 of the Rules, which provides for dismissal or removal in Serial No. 1 under Table of Rule 27 (1) of the Rules. His basic thrust is that the respondent is not entitled to get any benefit because there is no flaw in the departmental proceedings so conducted against him. Each and every procedure laid down in statute, so provided under Rule 27 of the Rules, has been duly complied with and the respondent was given all reasonable opportunities to defend his case. It is further contended that no document was placed on record by the respondent for the period December 21, 1994 to April 4, 1995 to prove his ailment for t