JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admitted facts of this case are that petitioner is working as Head Constable in S.S.B. When this writ petition was filed, he was posted in D Company, Rukling, Tehsil Moorang, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. Vide Annexure P-1 dated 15.11.2000, he was punished by the Commandant, Group Centre, SSB Dharampur, District Solan. For ready reference this order is extracted hereinbelow : A Carbine 9m bearing Regd. No. 16026976 along with 3 No. Mag. Carbine and 200 Rds 9 mm ball issued to No. 6863744 HC/GD Yashwant Singh of D Coy for election duty in Bihar. On dated 17.2.2000 one Mag. Carbine along with 10 Rds 9mm ball lost by the said NCO during election duty in Lakhi Sarai (Bihar). A Court of inquiry was conducted with regard to loss of said Mag. along with ammunition. The board of officer recommended that 100% cost of Mag. including 4% ST and 10 Rds 9 mm i.e. total Rs. 367 (Rupees three hundred sixty seven) only The Cost of Mag. Carbine and 10 Rds 9mm be recovered from No. 6863744 HC/GD Yashwant Singh, The Court of inquiry has been put up to competent authority and ordered that (A) The cost of Mag. and 10 Rds 9 mm amounting to Rs. 367 (rupees three hundred sixty seven) only be recovered from pay of HC/GD Yeshwant Singh and remitted to DACS and shortage be made good by indenting the stores. (B) HC/GD Yeshwant Singh No. 683744 of P Co is severally censured for this negligency of duty in check he lost Mag. of Carbine 9 mm and 10 Rds live ammunition during election duty in Bihar. In view of above it is hereby order a sum of Rs. 367/- (Rupees three hundred sixty seven) only be recovered from the pay of HC/GD Yeshwant Singh in one instalment and remitted to DACS. 3. Perusal of the above extracted order clearly indicates that for the alleged loss of Magazine Carbine, petitioner was punished and amount was ordered to be recovered in addition to his being severally censured. 4. When a reference is made to Chapter VI of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, censure is one of the punishments covered under Rule 27 of Chapter VI. It is at Serial No.9 of said Rule. 5. 4. When a reference is made to Chapter VI of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, censure is one of the punishments covered under Rule 27 of Chapter VI. It is at Serial No.9 of said Rule. 5. In the aforesaid background, respondent No.2 all of a sudden issued memorandum dated 10th August, 2001 along with Annexures I to IV vide Annexure P-2. When it was proposed to hold enquiry on the charge as contained in Annexure I. For ready reference this Article of charge is also extracted hereinbelow : "Article-I That No. 6863744 HC (GD) Yaswant Singh D Company Group Centre (SSB) Dharampur (HP) while functioning as such committed misconduct/neglect of duty and remissness in the discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member of the force U/S 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that he lost one Magazine of 9 MM Carbine containing 10 cartriges during Bihar State Assembly Election duties on 17.2.2000 during the escort/depositing of Ballot boxes after completion of second phase Bihar State Assembly Election in normal way in Lakhi Sarai (Bihar) while returning from strong room. Thus said HC (GD) Yaswant Singh No. 6863744 committed gross negligence/dereliction of his duties being responsible member of discipline force and failed to keep proper security/safety of his own personal weapon. 6. Statement of imputation of misconduct etc. is also in substance identical with the Articles of charge extracted hereinabove. It was intended to be supported with Annexure III, the list of documents and by witnesses as detailed in Annexure IV. 7. With a view to hold enquiry, Assistant Commandant, Group Centre, SSB Dharampur, was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide Annexure P-3. In this background, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following reliefs: (i) That the office memorandum dated 10th August, 2001 (Annexure A-2) may be quashed and set aside and respondents may be restrained from taking any action against the petitioner in furtherance of the order dated 10th August, 2001 (Annexure P-3). (ii) Any other writ, order or direction deemed just and proper by this Honble Court in the light of facts and circumstances of the case mentioned hereinabove may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) The respondents may be burdened with the cost of this petition throughout. (ii) Any other writ, order or direction deemed just and proper by this Honble Court in the light of facts and circumstances of the case mentioned hereinabove may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) The respondents may be burdened with the cost of this petition throughout. (iv) That the respondents may be directed to produce entire record pertaining to the case." 8. When this writ petition was filed on 1.11.2001 while issuing notice, Division Bench ordered that no further proceedings will be initiated by respondent No.2 in pursuance of Memorandum Annexure P-2 dated 10.8.2001. This petition was admitted on 31.12.2001. 9. When put to notice respondents by referring to its record made an attempt to justify their action in issuing Annexure P-2 as well as by appointing an Inquiry Officer vide Annexure P-3. A perusal of the reply further shows that with a view to hold its action in issuance of Annexures P-2 and P-3, respondents also relied upon Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. For ready reference this Rule as it stood on the date when the petitioner had committed acts of negligence/remissness etc. is also extracted hereinbelow : "29. Revision (a) A member of the Force whose appeal has been rejected by a competent authority may prefer petition for revision to the next superior authority. The power of revision may be exercised only when in consequence of some material irregularity, there has been injustice or miscarriage of justice or fresh evidence is disclosed. (b) The procedure prescribed for appeals under sub-rules (c) to (g) of rule 28 shall apply mutatis mutandis to petitions for revision. (c) The next superior authority while passing orders on a revision petition may at its discretion enhance punishment. (b) The procedure prescribed for appeals under sub-rules (c) to (g) of rule 28 shall apply mutatis mutandis to petitions for revision. (c) The next superior authority while passing orders on a revision petition may at its discretion enhance punishment. Provided that before enhancing the punishment the accused shall be given an opportunity to show cause why his punishment should not be enhanced : [Provided further that an order enhancing the punishment shall, for the purpose of appeal, be treated as an original order except when the same has been passed by the Government, in which case no further appeal shall lie and an appeal against such an order shall lie to the- (i) Inspector General if the same has been passed by the Deputy Inspector General; and (ii) Director General if the same has been passed by the Inspector General; and (iii) Central Government if the same has been passed by the Director General] (d) The Director General or the Additional Director General or the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General may call for the records of award of any punishment and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make or direct further investigation to be made before passing such orders: Provided that in a case in which it is proposed to enhance the punishment, the accused shall be given an opportunity to show cause either orally or in writing as to why his punishment should not be enhanced." 10. In the aforesaid background, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a submission by referring to Rule 29(d) (supra) that the impugned action of the respondents in issuing Annexures P-2 and P-3 in the face of the order Annexure P-1 is not only arbitrary, illegal, besides being unconstitutional, but is also ultra-vires of the aforesaid Rule. According to her, there is no power vested with the authorities enumerated in this Rule to order fresh enquiry. Without in any manner giving up or this plea and in the alternative for the sake of argument, she urged that even if respondents claim that they have power to issue fresh investigation in the face of Annexure P-1, still they cannot order any fresh enquiry. The question of ordering fresh enquiry will only crop up if the earlier order like Annexure P-1 had been annulled, which power vests with the authorities under Rule 29 (d) supra. The question of ordering fresh enquiry will only crop up if the earlier order like Annexure P-1 had been annulled, which power vests with the authorities under Rule 29 (d) supra. Thus, according to her, fresh enquiry, if any, could be ordered only after Annexure P-1 had been annulled. 11. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Singh, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. As according to him no exception can be taken either to Annexure P-2 or Annexure to P-3. Per him, Annexure P-1 operates in different sphere. It is only qua the recovery of costs of the ammunition that was lost by the petitioner while on election duty at Lakhi Sarai (Bihar). So that is one ot the aspect Rule 29 of the case. Whereas, action now envisaged is under 29 (supra). 12. Before assuming jurisdiction under Rule 29 (d) competent authority has to come to one of the conclusions as envisaged under this Rule. In addition to this, along with their reply respondents have placed on record Annexure R-1. These are the proceedings ot Court of Inquiry conducted against the petitioner wherein Commandant had ordered recovery after completion of Court of Inquiry against the petitioner. 13. Who can take action under Rule 29 (d) is enumerated in it. Whether they had actually ordered taking action thereunder, there is nothing on record produced indicating that competent authority had infact decided to take action and it was only thereafter that Annexures P-2 and P-3 were issued by the respondents. 14. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel was not in a position to satisfy the Court as to how both these Annexures can be upheld. Nor any record was produced at the time of hearing from which it could be gathered whether any such decision has in fact been taken by the competent authority. 15. Accordingly, in the face of the aforesaid facts, action of respondents in issuing Annexures P-2 and P-3 cannot be upheld and consequently are hereby quashed. 16. No other point, is urged. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly, and as a result it Annexures P-2 and P-3 are ordered to be quashed and set aside. 16. No other point, is urged. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly, and as a result it Annexures P-2 and P-3 are ordered to be quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that in case the respondents felt that the petitioner needs to be dealt with afresh, this order will not come in their way, provided they ensure that the relevant provisions ot law are not only followed in their letter, but in spirit also. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 18. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that her client is retiring on 31.8.2004. Whether in such a situation respondents should or should not proceed further in the matter as observed in the preceding para of this judgement, is left to the good sense and discretion or the authorities concerned. 19. Interim order shall stand vacated and pending CMP No. 1642 of 2001 shall also stand disposed of. Writ Petition Allowed.