The revisional authority has the power to enhance punishment suo moto under CRPF Rules, and procedural fairness was upheld in the inquiry process.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order dated 07.03.2019 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement from service has been imposed upon him and order dated 09.02.2018 issued by respondent No.4, reinstating the petitioner in service, has been set aside.

2. According to the petitioner, he had joined the service in CRPF on 01.04.1991 as a Havaldar/GD and was posted in 45^th Battalion at Sumbal, District Bandipora, Kashmir. The petitioner proceeded for five days leave on 09.05.2016 and was to resume his duties on 14.05.2016. However, due to compelling circumstances, he could not resume his duties. It has been submitted that the petitioner fell ill, as a result of which, he left his registered original residential house in Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh, and went to reside in the city area for his treatment which falls in Ward No.3 Ambara, District Chindwara, which is approximately 80 kms away from his original registered residence. It has been further submitted that during his illness, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Commandant, 45^th Battalion CRPF, vide his order dated 04.04.2017.The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before respondent No.4, who, vide order dated 09.02.2018, modified the order of the Commandant and reinstated the petitioner back in service, while imposing a penalty of stoppage of annual increments for two years from the date of accrual of next increment i.e from 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2020.

3. The aforesaid order of respondent No.4 was kept in abeyance by respondent No.3 in terms of his order dated 21.02.2018 and was ultimately set aside by the said respondent in terms of order dated 12^th July, 2018 and order dated 04.04.2017 regarding dismissal of the petitioner from service as imposed by the Commandant was upheld.

4. Against the aforesaid order passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation before respondent No.2. Vide order dated 26.12.2018, respondent No.2 quashed order dated 12.07.2018 passed by respondent No.3 and remanded the case to him with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as per the relevant rules and to decide the case on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of respondent No.2, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner which was responded to by him in terms of his representation dated 07.03.2019. Respondent No.3, after considering the representation of the petitioner, issued the impugned order whereby punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon the petitioner and order of his reinstatement in service was set aside.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 on the ground that the same is based on a unilateral departmental inquiry, as no notice regarding the same was ever served upon the petitioner. It has been contended that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed by him. It has also been contended that respondent No.4, while reinstating the petitioner in service, had considered the medical record produced by the petitioner and, therefore, it was not open to respondent No.3- the Revisional Authority to re-appreciate the material on record.

6. It has been further contended that respondent No.3 does not have suo moto power of revision and the said authority can excise revisional power only if an application is made by a delinquent official. It has also been contended that while enhancing punishment of the petitioner, respondent No.3 did not follow the procedure prescribed under CRPF Rules. It has been further contended that the offence committed by the petitioner falls in the category of less heinous offences as reflected in Section 10 of the CRPF Act, as such, it was not open to respondent No.3 to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement up