Dr. Saikia, CJ. 1. Heard Mr. P. S. Chandel, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC), appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. The respondent herein was a Constable working in the establishment of Central Reserve Police Force under respondent no. 4, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Sector-5, Chandigarh. He was granted leave for a period of one month from 8.1.1994 to 6.2.1994. After availing the sanctioned leave he overstayed and in the result he remained absent from duty with effect from 2.4.1994 to 4.4.1995. In view of the above un-authorized absence, he was asked to show cause and, eventually a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short `the Rules’), framed under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short, `the Act’), wherein the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of misconduct and indiscipline, as a member of the Force. Accordingly, he was removed from service in terms of Section 11 (1) of the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules. 3. Assailing this removal order, the respondent as the writ petitioner initiated the instant writ proceedings before the Writ Court alleging inter alia that : i. the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent was based on irregularities, infirmities, perversity and the same was in flagrant contravention of the procedure prescribed in Rule 27 of the Rules; ii. the medical certificate, being the vital and valid document to prove the ailment he had been suffering, issued by the Government Doctor of Public Health Centre from his area, was disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer in flimsy grounds not permitted by law; iii. punishment of removal for the alleged offence of unauthorized leave is absolutely excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed by him. 4. Countering all these allegations, the appellant-Union of India filed an affidavit wherein it denied all averments made by the respondent claiming that the respondent was all along given reasonable and adequate opportunities during the entire departmental inquiry and the entire procedure as stipulated under Rule 27 of the Rules, was duly complied with and there was no deviation from the said Rules in dealing with the case of the respondent in the departmental proceeding. 5. 5. The Writ Court, having considered the entire aspect, came to the finding that the impugned removal order of the respondent was not provided under Section 11 (i) of the Act, as Section 11 (1)(e) of the Act does not prescribe removal from service, and, accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with the direction that the respondent should be reinstated with all consequential benefits minus monetary benefits. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Writ Court, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred before this Court by the Union of India, basically, pleading the sole point that the entire approach of the Writ Court to the issue involved was wrong and in contrary to the provision of law. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Chandel, learned CGSC, has contended that removal of the respondent was not ordered under Section 11 (1) of the Act, which was relied upon by the Writ Court but the respondent was removed from service only under Rule 27 of the Rules, which provides for dismissal or removal in Serial No. 1 under Table of Rule 27 (1) of the Rules. His basic thrust is that the respondent is not entitled to get any benefit because there is no flaw in the departmental proceedings so conducted against him. Each and every procedure laid down in statute, so provided under Rule 27 of the Rules, has been duly complied with and the respondent was given all reasonable opportunities to defend his case. It is further contended that no document was placed on record by the respondent for the period December 21, 1994 to April 4, 1995 to prove his ailment for that period. To bolster up his submission, the learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the finding of the Inquiry Officer where it was clearly found that there was no such proof regarding his ailment for the period from December 21, 1994 to April 4, 1995 as the medical certificate produced by the respondent indicated the period only from 1.2.94 to 20.12.94. In such circumstances, it is argued on behalf of Union of India that the impugned order deserves interference and is not tenable in the law. 8. Mr. In such circumstances, it is argued on behalf of Union of India that the impugned order deserves interference and is not tenable in the law. 8. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, defending the impugned judgment, at the very outset, has submitted that the medical certificate, which was placed on record in proof of the ailment of the respondent, was outrightly rejected with the observation that the same was not acceptable because the same was not issued by any renowned Doctor of a reputed hospital and the same caused grave prejudice to the respondent. In his second submission, it is contended that the punishment is not proportionate to the alleged mis-conduct of unauthorised absence. 9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and anr. reported as AIR 2004 SC 2131 ., wherein in paragraph 10, 11, and 12 it was held that no reasonable disciplinary authority would term absence on medical grounds with proper medical certificates from Government Doctors as grave mis-conduct, and such defence could not be termed as grave mis-conduct. 10. For facility of reference paragraph nos. 10, 11 & 12 are reproduced hereunder: "10. In the instant case, the appellant had absented himself for 2 months, 8 days and 17 hours on medical grounds. The above two Rules 8, 10 provide that penalty of removal can be imposed only in cases, if grave misconduct and continued misconduct indicating incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. The absence of the appellant on medical grounds with application for leave as well as sanction of leave can under no circumstances, in our opinion, be termed as grave misconduct or continued misconduct rendering him unfit for police service. 11. The order dated 16.1.1995 passed by the respondents was produced by the respondents themselves in their reply to C.W.P. before the High Court of Delhi that had sanctioned leave without pay for the period from 7.10.1994 to 15.12.1994, the period alleged unauthorized absence. The High Court has failed to appreciate and evaluate this aspect of the matter. 11. The order dated 16.1.1995 passed by the respondents was produced by the respondents themselves in their reply to C.W.P. before the High Court of Delhi that had sanctioned leave without pay for the period from 7.10.1994 to 15.12.1994, the period alleged unauthorized absence. The High Court has failed to appreciate and evaluate this aspect of the matter. The High Court also did not appreciate that after issuing sanction for leave for the period in question, the employee’s legitimate expectation would be that no stern action would be taken against him with respect to the alleged act of misconduct which by no stretch of imagination can be considered act of gross misconduct or continued misconduct indicating incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant is a habitual absentee. He had to proceed on leave under compulsion because of his grave condition of health and, therefore, the punishment of removal from service is excessive and disproportionate. We are of the view that the punishment of dismissal/removal from service can be awarded only for the acts of grave nature or as cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility of complete unfitness for police service. Merely one incident of absence and that too because of bad health and valid and justified grounds/reasons cannot become basis for awarding such a punishment. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision of the disciplinary authority inflicting a penalty of removal from service is ultra vires of Rules 8 (a) and 10 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeals Rules, 1980) and is liable to be set aside. The appellant also does not have any other source of income and will not get any other job at this age and the stigma attached to him on account of the impugned punishment. As a result of not only he but his entire family totally dependent on him will be forced to starve. These are the mitigating circumstances which warrant that the punishment/order of the disciplinary authority is to be set aside. 12. The disciplinary authority without caring to examine the medical aspect of the absence, awarded the respondent punishment of removal from service since their earlier order of termination of appellants service tender Temporary Service Rules did not materialise. These are the mitigating circumstances which warrant that the punishment/order of the disciplinary authority is to be set aside. 12. The disciplinary authority without caring to examine the medical aspect of the absence, awarded the respondent punishment of removal from service since their earlier order of termination of appellants service tender Temporary Service Rules did not materialise. No reasonable disciplinary authority would term absence on medical grounds with proper medical certificates from Government Doctors as grave misconduct in terms of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980). Non Application of mind by quasi judicial authorities can be seen in this case. The very fact that respondents have asked the appellant for the --medical clearly establishes that they had received applicant’s application with medical certificate. This can never be termed as willful absence without any information to competent authority and can never be termed as grave misconduct. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. We have meticulously laid our hands on the records placed before us and also gone through the entire pleadings which have been exchanged by and between the parties. 12. It appears that in Paragraph 6 particularly in (v) of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded as under: 6(v). That the Central Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, were not applicable to the cases yet were applied. The procedure adopted and followed under these rules could not have been applied. The procedure is well laid in the C. R. P. F. (Conduct) Rules, 1955, which prescribe that the delinquent must be put to plea of guilty or not guilty by the Inquiry Officer, then if he pleads not guilty the evidence of the prosecution be recorded with opportunity to cross/examine by the delinquent followed by recording of the statement of the delinquent. Then the delinquent is asked to cite witnesses and produce evidence in rebuttal. This procedure has not been adopted by the Inquiry Officer but followed the procedure was neither put to the please of guilty or not guilty nor after recording of his statement asked to cite witnesses and evidence to be produced in his defence. Thus depriving the petitioner of adequate opportunity to cite the witnesses and evidence in rebuttal. This has certainly prejudiced the case of the petitioner to a great extent. Thus depriving the petitioner of adequate opportunity to cite the witnesses and evidence in rebuttal. This has certainly prejudiced the case of the petitioner to a great extent. The obligation for asking the petitioner to cite witnesses and evidence was on the Inquiry officer who never did the needful. Had the petitioner been asked he would have certainly produced the witnesses for substantiating the factum of his illness and restraint in the way/journey. The petitioner has been deprived of his invaluable right of rebuttal." 13. However to counter this paragraph, Union of India in its objections/affidavit in opposition in Paragraph 11 took the stand as under: "11. That the contents of para No. 6(v) are denied. It is submitted that only some rules of CCS (CCA) have been specifically incorporated in Central Reserve Police Force rules, 1955, to deal with force personnel. As such all Central Reserve Police Force personnel are basically governed by the CCS (CCA) rules being a Central Government employees. According to the CCS rules the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to defend him from the very beginning of the inquiry and replies received from him were also examined by the inquiry officer. As such the petitioner was never deprived of his liberty." 14. In depth reading of both the paragraphs, i.e., 6(v) of the writ petition as well as paragraph 11 of the objections/affidavit in opposition, as noted above, would come to indicate that the allegation made in paragraph 6 (v) of the writ petition has not been properly and adequately answered by the appellant. The specific case of the respondent was that in terms of the Rule, the delinquent must be put to plea of guilty or not guilty by the Enquiry Officer and, if he pleads not guilty, the evidence of the prosecution needs to be recorded with an opportunity to cross-examine by the delinquent followed by the recording of the statement of the delinquent. Then the delinquent is required to ask to cite witnesses and produce evidence in rebuttal. This specific allegation was not rebutted by the appellant in paragraph above quoted or in any other paragraphs of the said objections/affidavit in opposition. 15. Then the delinquent is required to ask to cite witnesses and produce evidence in rebuttal. This specific allegation was not rebutted by the appellant in paragraph above quoted or in any other paragraphs of the said objections/affidavit in opposition. 15. That apart, we have also gone through the enquiry report wherein the Enquiry Officer took the view that the medical certificate, so placed on record was not authenticated and even the medicines prescribed by the Doctor, were not effective medicines against the ailment the respondent was suffering from. It is amazing to note that the Enquiry Officer took extraneous consideration in rejecting the said medical certificate. Even in paragraph 3 under para-wise reply in the objections/affidavit in opposition filed by the appellant, it is averred that the respondent had managed to obtain a medical certificate with mala fide intention just to justify his prolong absence from duty, which appears to be based on no evidence. 16. Be that as it may, the allegation, as put forward in Paragraph 6(v) of the writ petition, in opinion of this Court, has not been categorically refuted and rebutted by the appellant. It is thus safely inferred from the pleadings of the parties that the appellant, who was duty bound to comply with the procedure provided in Rule 27 (c) of the Rules, has in effect observed same in breach. The procedure provided in Rule 27(c) of the Rules provides adequate safeguards to a delinquent official. The competent authority, in order to arrive at a lawful conclusion, is duty bound to follow the procedure as contained in Rule 27 (c) of the Rules. In this case, glaring procedural irregularities have been committed by the competent authority while conducting enquiry. Violation of the procedural safeguards contained in Rule 27(C) of the Rules renders the enquiry illegal and vitiates the entire proceedings. Testing the action of appellant on the anvil of constitutional mandate as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the competent authority has violated the guarantees contained in this provision of the Constitution, as available to the respondent, inasmuch as, the protections available to the respondents in terms of Rule 27 (c) of the Rules, have not been followed, which has resulted in not affording protection of laws to the respondent. It is, therefore, ruled that the provision of Rule 27 (c) of the Rules has not been adhered to in conducting the departmental enquiry against the respondent. 17. In view of the above, we are of the view that this removal order was bad in law and lacks in proper compliance of Rule 27(c) of the Rules which is reproduced as under: "27 (c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows: (1) the substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge, which should be as precise as possible. The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry. (2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral; (i) it shall be direct; (ii) it shall be recorded by the Officer conducting the enquiry himself in the presence of the accused; (iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses. (3) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect the exhibits. (4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. If the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads "Not guilty", he shall be required to file a written statement, and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than fortnight, as the officer conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed. (5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed. (5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the enquiry considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the accused wants to produce in his defence is not material to the issues involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such documents to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. (6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings, to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders, where he has power to do so." 18. Accordingly, we set aside the removal order and direct the appellants to reinstate the respondent with liberty to the appellants to initiate de novo Departmental proceedings in compliance of Rule 27 (c) of the Rules against the respondent and in case of initiation of de novo proceedings, as indicated above, the same may be undertaken and concluded within a period of three months from the date of initiation of such proceedings. 19. Accordingly the impugned judgment stands modified. 20. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.