Judgment U. P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal from service (Annexure-4) passed by the Commandant, C. I. S. F. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short. C. I. S. F.) in the year 1972. He was working as a security guard posted at Bokaro Steel Plant, Dhanbad. The service of the petitioner was regulated by the Central Industrial Security Force Act No.50 of 1968 (in short, the Act) and the Central Industrial Security Force Rules (in short, the Rules ). He resumed and reported his duties at Bokaro after a delay of five days. The assistant Commandant (Administration) CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Limited, issued an order awarding a punishment of seven days pack drill (Pithoo-parade) for resuming the duty after five days, i. e. for being absent between 31-3-1978 to 4-4-1978. He was also awarded 2 days pack drill by AC (JAO) for the alleged absence of two days from the parade. The order is contained in Annexure-1. The Inspector c Coy. C. I. S. F. Unit, Bokaro Steel Limited ordered him to undergo the said punishment of pack drill for nine days. He was allowed time till 29-4-1978 for submission of reply against the punishment, if any. On 29th april, 1978, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that punishments, namely, deduction of leave, entry in the service records and nine days pack drill were illegally awarded to him. It was mala fide and contrary to C. I. S. F. Act, and rules. On this reply he was suspended with effect from 3-5-19/8 by the commandant. He was served with a memorandum enclosing the statement of allegations and Articles of Charges framed against him. He was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The statement of Articles of charges contained in annexure-2/a reads as follows : "statement of Articles of charges framed against CSF No.7201155 security Guard, Gorakh Rai of C. I. S. F. Unit BSL, Bokaro Steel City. Charge I-S. G. Gorakh Rai has disobeyed the lawful orders when ordered to carry out 9 days PD awarded to him on 6-4-1978 and 14-4-1978. Charge II-S. G. Gorakh Rai has approached the local Union leaders with false grievances against the C. I. S. F. Unit which is against all norms of discipline of the force. Charge I-S. G. Gorakh Rai has disobeyed the lawful orders when ordered to carry out 9 days PD awarded to him on 6-4-1978 and 14-4-1978. Charge II-S. G. Gorakh Rai has approached the local Union leaders with false grievances against the C. I. S. F. Unit which is against all norms of discipline of the force. Charge III-S. G. Gorakh Rai has committed an act of gross indiscipline and thus tarnished the image of the force. " 3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Commandant against the aforesaid memorandum and stated that Rule 32 read with Rule 36 does not provide Pack Drill as punishment and, as such, the order was unlawful. He also denied the other charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the comamndant (Adm.) on 11-9-1978. On perusal of the findings of the enquiry report, a show cause notice for dismissal from service was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply and stated that the enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The findings of the Enquiry officer were perverse and illegal because (a) Rules 31 and 32 read with Rule 36 do not provide Pack-Drill and as such, Charge No.1 is groundless and baseless ; (b)that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity because the charge-sheet did not disclose the proper information about the evidence to be produced against the petitioner; and (c) that the charge-sheet did not disclose the information regarding Charge Mo.2 as to when and now information was given to the authority about the trade union activity and even the Enquiry Officer did not serve the copy of any complaint petition in regard to the trade union activity of the petitioner. The petitioner was removed from service (Annexure-4 ). He preferred an appeal to the D. I. G. , C. I. S. F. Bokaro Stteel Plant but the same was dismissed in November, 1978. 4. The petty punishment is provided in Rule 32 of the C. I. S. F. Rules, 1969 which reads as follows : "32. Petty Punishments.-Head Security Guards, Senior Security Guards and Security Guards may also be awarded as punishment, extra drill, guard fatigue or other duty for a term not exceeding fourteen days. Explanation.-Petty punishment shall ordinarily be awarded in orderly room as provided in Rule 36 of the Rules. " 5. Petty Punishments.-Head Security Guards, Senior Security Guards and Security Guards may also be awarded as punishment, extra drill, guard fatigue or other duty for a term not exceeding fourteen days. Explanation.-Petty punishment shall ordinarily be awarded in orderly room as provided in Rule 36 of the Rules. " 5. The Commandant on interpretation of Rule 32 held that the words other duties in Rule 32 will certainly include pack drill and as such the order for pack drill- as punishment was legal and valid. Thus, the petitioner was a defaulter and guilty of disobeying the lawful orders. So far as charge No.2 is concerned it was found that the petitioner was not furnished information so as to enable him to prepare his defence and there is no law under which meeting with the Trade Union leaders could be termed as indiscipline or infraction of the rules. Charge No.3 was a mere repetition of the earlier two charges and, therefore, it was held that those charges were not proved beyond doubt. A lenient view was taken and inspite of dismissing him from service he was awarded punishment for removal from service. 6. Mr. Debi Prasad, the respondents counsel has supported the finding of the punishment on the ground that the words other duty mentioned in rule 32 of the Rules will include Pack Drill as one of the petty punishments. The petitioners counsel on the other hand has seriously contended that Pack drill is not one of the petty punishments mentioned in Rule 32. 7. The basic question which arises for determination in this case is whether the punishment of pack drill is included in petty punishment mentioned in rule 32 and even for the sake of argument it be accepted that it includes pack drill as one of the petty punishment, it will have to be considered whether the order contained in Annexure-1 imposing punishment of pack drill was legal and valid. On a perusal of the order contained in Annexure-1, the reasons for punishment was that the petitioner came late to join his post from C. I. S. F. Unit, Nangal, to his Unit at Bokaro after five days. It does not appear from the order contained in Annexure-1 that the procedure for imposing petty punish-ment as envisaged in Rule 32 was followed by the Assistant Commandant. It does not appear from the order contained in Annexure-1 that the procedure for imposing petty punish-ment as envisaged in Rule 32 was followed by the Assistant Commandant. Admittedly the petitioner was on transfer from Nangal Unit to Bokaro Unit and he resumed his duties after a delay of five days. Therefore, the question essentially was one of transit leave or over stay in continuation of the transit leave. It is not disputed that in so far as leave of any kind is concerned, reading rule, 61 of C. I. S. F. Rules, it appears that leave Rules applicable to its employees are the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 . Therefore, the question which the Assistant Commandant was required to consider was in relation to the extent of leave the petitioner had availed of in continuation of transit leave which should have been dealt with in accordance with Central Civil services (Leave) Rules, 1972. Rules 21 and 22 of the Central Civil Services (Leave)Rules 1972 provides for such contingency, which was not necessarily a sort of lapse on the part of the petitioner to be treated as an act of indiscipline. Further, it does not appear from the order (Annexure-1) whether the petitioner was given opportunity to explain as to why he reported on duty after five days on transfer from Nangal to Bokaro. May be, that the petitioner might have shown that the leave was granted to him in respect of a particular period which permitted him to absent himself from duty for that period. The authority should have afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain his absence and then it should have proceeded to punish him after due and proper enquiry and only after affording all reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. This itself renders the order (Annexure 1) illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the order of removal from service contained in Annexure-4 which owes its origin to Annexure 1 cannot be sustained. Resuming and reporting duties late by five days on transfer was necessarily a question of transit leave or over stay in continuation of transit and as such, it was incumbent upon the commandant to proceed under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 . It is not denied by the Respondents that the petitioner had been awarded penalty for resuming his duties late by five days. It is not denied by the Respondents that the petitioner had been awarded penalty for resuming his duties late by five days. For this, there was already a punishment by way of deduction in leave account and entries were made in his service record, Even then, the order of removal from service was passed against him on the same charge. From the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 it appears that the authority was conscious of the violation of the principles of natural justice and rightly held that the petitioner was not given sufficient information so as to enable him to prepare his defence. Along with the articles of Charges the statement of witnesses, through whom the charges were sought to be proved, were not included. The contention of the petitioner, there fore, that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice, has to be accepted. The order in appeal passed by the D. I. G. , C. I. S. F. also suffers from the same infirmity. 8. In the result, the orders contained in Annexures-4 and 1 are quashed. The application is allowed but there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.