ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs. :--

“The humble petitioner most respectfully prays that the present petition may kindly be allowed with costs by issuing a Writ, Order or Direction to the respondents, quashing the order of punishment of removal from service, Annexure P/1, dated 17 July, 2007, issued by respondent No.3.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts of the case, may also kindly be granted including the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that charge-sheet was issued on four different charges. A departmental enquiry was conducted. The charges No. 1, 2 and 4 were not found to be proved, whereas, charge No. 3 was found to be partially proved. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued along with enquiry report and the Commandant/Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.7.2006 imposed the punishment of censure. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued by the DIG, CRPF, Neemuch dated 7.5.2007 to the effect that the charge No. 1 was in fact supported by the evidence of the complainant and Manzoor Alam and was duly proved and therefore, he does not agree with the punishment of censure and in exercise of power contained under Rule 29 (2)(D) of CRPF Rules, 1955, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why he may not be removed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply and refuted the allegations.

3. By impugned order dated 17.7.2007, the DIG CRPF Neemuch has cancelled the order dated 29.7.2006 issued by the disciplinary authority and imposed the punishment of removal from his services.

4. Challenging the impugned order dated 17.7.2007 it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the power exercised by the authority was barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the entire exercise was conducted by the revisional authority under the orders of his superior authorities and thus it cannot be said that the revisional authority had applied his own independent mind to exercise the discretion vested in him. It is submitted that although no period of limitation is provided under the CRPF Rules, 1955, but in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India & Ors v. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari reported in (2011) 7 SCC 321 the power of revision should have been exercised within a period of six months from the date of the passing of the order by the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the disciplinary authority had issued the order of punishment on 29.7.2006 whereas the show cause notice for enhancement of punishment was issued on 7.5.2007 i.e. after ten months and therefore it was beyond the period of six months. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that in the show cause notice dated 7.5.2007 itself it was mentioned by the revisional authority that his senior officers have directed him to review the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner and thus the mention of the proposed punishment i.e. removal from service was nothing but it indicates the predetermined mind of the authority. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) and others v. Director General of Civil Aviation and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435. It is further submitted that pre-decisional hearing should have been awarded to the petitioner and to buttress his contention the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India and Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 331.

5. Per contra, the petition has vehemently opposed by the Counsel for respo