G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a matter referred by a learned single Judge of this Court through his order dated 23-1-2003 to clarify on the point whether Section 11 of the Central Reserve police Force Act, 1949 ( the Act for brevity) deals with the penalty of dismissal from service and empowers the concerned authorities to impose the punishment of dismissal by invoking the powers under section 11 (1) of the Act. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is filed by a constable in the Central Reserve Police force ( crpf ) who was imposed a punishment of dismissal from service. A departmental enquiry under Section 11 (1) of the Act was conducted against him alleging that he committed an act of misconduct and disobedience of the orders in his capacity as a member of the Force by way of overstaying from 19-4-1997 indefinitely, after applying for one day casual leave on 18-4-1997 without prior permission or sanction from the competent authority. The 3rd respondent (disciplinary authority) passed an order on 7-4-1998 holding that the charge framed against him has been proved. Therefore, on 16-4-1999 the 2nd respondent by virtue of the powers vested in him under Rule 27 of the Central reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 ( the Rules for brevity) dismissed the writ petitioner from service w. e. f. 7-4-1998. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent filed the writ petition praying to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the orders of the 3rd respondent and 2nd respondent dated 7-4-1998 and 16-4-1999 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge, while dealing with Section 11 (1) of the Act, observed as follows: from a reading of Section 11, it is prima facie evident that it deals with only minor punishment of the nature of those referred to in items (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and such punishments are permitted to be imposed in lieu of, or in addition to suspension or dismissal. It is rather difficult to countenance that sec. ll by itself deals with punishments of dismissal and no other provisions of crpf Act dealing with the punishment of dismissal is brought to the notice of this court. It is rather difficult to countenance that sec. ll by itself deals with punishments of dismissal and no other provisions of crpf Act dealing with the punishment of dismissal is brought to the notice of this court. The learned Central Government standing Counsel has placed before this court the judgment of the Division bench of the Allahabad High Court in special Appeal No. 201 of 1993 dated 6-10-2001 as well as the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Delhi high Court in C. W. No. 3920 of 1999. I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe the view taken by the allahabad High Court or the Delhi high Court in the judgments referred to above. I am of the considered view that this matter needs to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court. ( 5 ) IN the light of the observations made by the learned single Judge and the reference made by him, we wish to refer to the relevant provisions and the judgments of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts. ( 6 ) SECTION 11 (1) of the Central Reserve police Force Act, 1949 reads as follows: 11. Minor Punishments:- (1) The commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may subject to any rules made in this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say- (A) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month s pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter guard for not more than twenty-eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra-guard, fatigue or other duty, and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. ( 7 ) SECTIONS 9 to 14 of the Act deal with the offences and punishments. Section 9 refers to various more heinous crimes and the punishments prescribed thereon. Section 10 deals with less heinous crimes and the punishments prescribed thereon. Section 11 deals with minor punishments. ( 7 ) SECTIONS 9 to 14 of the Act deal with the offences and punishments. Section 9 refers to various more heinous crimes and the punishments prescribed thereon. Section 10 deals with less heinous crimes and the punishments prescribed thereon. Section 11 deals with minor punishments. A careful reading of Section 11 (1) indicates that the commandant, for the guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct of a member of the Force may, in addition to suspension and removal from service, order reduction in rank etc. Sec. 12 provides for place of imprisonment and liability to dismissal on imprisonment which is not relevant for the point in issue. ( 8 ) IN an unreported decision of a Division bench of the Allahabad High Court in dy. Inspector General of Police, CRPF (Rampur, u. P.) and another v. Munna Singh Yadav the question of interpretation of Section 11 (1) of the Act came up for consideration. In the said appeal, the respondent-writ petitioner was posted as a Constable in the 8th battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force. One woman alleging herself to be his wife filed a complaint to the Commandant that the writ petitioner had contracted a second marriage with another lady. On the basis of the said complaint an enquiry was directed to be held against the writ petitioner alleging that he committed an act of misconduct in his capacity under Section 11 (1) of the Act by way of contacting second marriage while his first wife was alive, without obtaining prior permission of the Government to contract second marriage, which is unbecoming of the Government servant and violation of Rule 15 of the Rules. ( 9 ) THE writ petitioner admitted the second marriage before the enquiry officer. The Commandant dismissed him from service. The appeal filed by him before the appellate authority was also rejected. The writ petition filed by him was allowed by the learned single Judge observing that there was no allegation that customary ceremonies of Saptapadi was observed on the marriage ceremony with the second wife. ( 10 ) IN the Special Appeal, the Standing counsel for the Union of India submitted before the Division Bench that at no point of time the writ petitioner denied his second marriage. Therefore, the question of disbelieving the second marriage does not arise. ( 10 ) IN the Special Appeal, the Standing counsel for the Union of India submitted before the Division Bench that at no point of time the writ petitioner denied his second marriage. Therefore, the question of disbelieving the second marriage does not arise. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner, in addition to several other contentions, that Section 11 of the Act only provides for the minor punishments as would be clear from the heading, of the section itself and the punishment by way of dismissal cannot be given. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon a decision of the Division Bench of the allahabad High Court in Giriraj Sharma v. Union of India. The Division Bench in response to the question raised by the counsel for the writ petitioner respondent held as follows: so far as the question as to whether the punishment of dismissal can be passed under Section 11 (1) of the Act is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the punishment provided under section 11 (1) is in lieu or in addition to suspension or dismissal. Thus, the power of passing order of dismissal is there with the authorities. The decision of this Court in the case of Giriraj sharma (supra) has ignored the words "in lieu or in addition to suspension or dismissal" occurring in Section 11 (1) of the Act. ( 11 ) THE Division Bench accordingly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge passed in the writ petition. ( 12 ) IN an unreported decision of the Delhi high Court in Ram Bihari Shukla v. Union of india it was contended before the learned single Judge that since the impugned action had been taken under the provisions of section 11 of the Act, no major penalty like dismissal from service could have been imposed upon the petitioner, as the provisions of Section 11 relates only to minor punishments. It was further contended that dismissal from service is not included as one of the punishments and therefore the action of the respondents in awarding the penalty of dismissal from service was illegal and void. It was further contended that dismissal from service is not included as one of the punishments and therefore the action of the respondents in awarding the penalty of dismissal from service was illegal and void. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that a fair reading of the provisions of Section 11 would indicate that one of the punishments mentioned therein is dismissal from service and, therefore, imposition of penalty of dismissal from service in the instant case applying the provisions of Section 11 cannot be said to be illegal and void. The learned single Judge while referring to Section 11 (1) observed as follows: the aforesaid provision makes it clear that punishment could be imposed on a delinquent person if he is guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force. If a person is guilty in any manner as stated above, he could be awarded suspension or dismissal from service. The words in lieu of or in addition to, suspension or dismissal appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 11 before clauses (a) to (e) show that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of suspension or dismissal to the member of the Force, who is found guilty and in addition to or in lieu thereof, could impose punishment as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e ). The heading minor Punishments in section 11 is a misnomer. It is established rule of interpretation that although such heading may be looked into for interpreting a section, the words of which admit of any reasonable doubt, it cannot be taken to restrict the plain terms of the Section. A proper reading of the aforesaid sections 9, 10 and 11 would clearly show that a delinquent person can be punished with dismissal even if he has not been prosecuted for an offence under Sections 9 or 10 of the Act. ( 13 ) THE learned single Judge of the Delhi high Court while coming to the above conclusion relied on the judgments of the jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan High courts in Deen Dayal v. D. I. G. of Police, c. R. P. F. and Shyamsingh v. D. I. G. of Police respectively. ( 13 ) THE learned single Judge of the Delhi high Court while coming to the above conclusion relied on the judgments of the jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan High courts in Deen Dayal v. D. I. G. of Police, c. R. P. F. and Shyamsingh v. D. I. G. of Police respectively. ( 14 ) IN Deen Dayal a learned single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court while considering the purport of Section 11 of the act held that the words "in lieu of or in addition to" in my opinion clearly indicate that in addition to the punishment of dismissal from service the punishments prescribed in Section 11 could be passed or in lieu of a punishment for dismissal. The contention that the punishment of removal or dismissal could be passed only under section 12 does not seem to be correct because this section clearly lays down that if any person has been sentenced to imprisonment under the Act, then he can be dismissed and shall also be liable to forfeiture of pay etc. In my opinion it cannot be said that a punishment of removal or dismissal from Force can only be passed under Section 12 of the Act. ( 15 ) IN Shyamsingh a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held as follows: from perusal of Sec. 12 it is clear that the punishment of dismissal under the section may be given to a delinquent in addition to the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him under the law. If the authorities mean to proceed under the section, it will not be necessary to observe the formalities of a regular disciplinary inquiry and action may be taken up after a person s conviction and punishment of imprisonment under the Act. It does not lay down that a person should not be liable to dismissal if he is not convicted and sentenced under the act. (para 6) the words "in lieu of, or in addition to suspension or dismissal" appearing in sub-section (1) of Sec. 11 before clauses (a) to (e) show that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of the Force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the minor punishments mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) may also be awarded. (para 7) from a reading of Secs. (para 7) from a reading of Secs. 9 to 11 it is again clear that Sec. 11 deals with only those minor punishments which may be awarded in a departmental enquiry and a plain reading of Sec. 11 makes it quite clear that a punishment of dismissal can be awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 9 or Sec. 10. (para 8) ( 16 ) THE learned single Judge of the Delhi high Court also relied on an unreported division Bench judgment of the Allahabad high Court in Munna Singh Yadav (supra) and ultimately held that there is no force in the contention that Section 11 relates only to minor punishments and that the awarding of penalty of dismissal from service under section 11 of the Act is neither illegal nor void. ( 17 ) THOUGH the wording used to the heading of Section 11 leads to an impression that the section relates to minor punishments , the language used in the body makes the intention of the framers very clear that the section empowers the authorities to impose suspension or dismissal from service in lieu of or in addition to the punishments mentioned in clauses (a) to (e ). We have carefully gone through the contentions raised before the high Courts of Allahabad, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan and the findings given by the Division Benches of the High courts of Allahabad and Rajasthan and the single Judges of the other High Courts. We are in total agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judges and we hold in unequivocal terms that Section 11 (1) of the Act empowers the authorities to impose suspension or dismissal from service in lieu of or in addition to the punishments mentioned under clauses (a) to (e ). The reference is accordingly answered. ( 18 ) OFFICE to transmit the record to the learned single Judge for disposal according to law.