JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

The present Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the appellants-defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2009 passed by the lower appellate court by which, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, challenging the order dated 11.01.2001 passed by the appellants-defendants dismissing him from service, has been set aside being contrary to the provisions to the CRPF Act, 1949.

2. In order to appreciate the issue raised in the appeal in correct perspective, certain facts needs to be mentioned.

3. The respondent-plaintiff was appointed on the post of a Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) on 21.11.1991. The Battalian where respondent-plaintiff was posted, was transferred from Tripura to Jammu & Kashmir and during re-location of the Government store on 24.04.1999, the vehicle being driven by the respondent-plaintiff met with an accident on a National Highway-40 in Meghalaya about 35 kms from Shillong. In the said accident, five personnel suffered injuries out of which, one personnel suffered grievous injuries and the vehicle was badly damaged.

4. A Court of Inquiry (COI) was conducted to enquire into the circumstances which led to the accident. After the enquiry, the respondent-plaintiff was held responsible for violating the convoy instructions on account of driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, which led to overturning of the vehicle while negotiating a 'U Shape' curve.

5. Keeping in view the finding given during Court of Inquiry, a departmental inquiry was initiated against respondent-plaintiff under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with rule 27(c) of CRPF, wherein the allegations alleged were proved and ultimately, vide order dated 11.01.2001, the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed from the service.

6. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from the service, an appeal was preferred by respondent-plaintiff which was rejected by the authorities on 01.05.2001 and accordingly, a civil suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff challenging the order of punishment as well as rejection of appeal.

7. During the trial, keeping in view the evidence and facts which came on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that in the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, the major punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed and the said punishment was set aside and accordingly the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed in his favour.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court dated 20.11.2004, an appeal was preferred by appellant-respondent. In the said appeal, the Lower Appellate Court on 10.03.2009, dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India holding that under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, only minor penalty can be imposed, whereas, the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the respondent-plaintiff was contrary to the Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the only reason given by the Courts below to allow the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff qua the challenge to the order of punishment is that under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, only minor punishment can be imposed and not the major punishment, whereas, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4950 of 1999 titled as Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat decided on 20.10.2005, while interpreting Section 11 (1) read with Rule 27 of the Central Rese