JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Shri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tej Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the quashing of the order of compulsory retirement dated 23.5.2000 passed by respondent No. 2, Commandant, 85, Bn. Central Reserve Police Force, Bokajan, Assam, Appellate Order dated 14.8.2000, passed by respondent No. 4, Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Allahabad and Revisional Order dated 1.1.2008, passed by respondent No. 5, Inspector General of Police, Central Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow, U.P. Further direction has been sought commanding the concerned respondents to treat the petitioner as regular/reinstated in his service w.e.f., 23.5.2000 (date of compulsory retirement) to 7.1.2004 (date of superannuation) and to ensure payment of full salary and other emoluments and permissible benefits under the Law alongwith 18% interest to the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working on the post of Hawaldar in Central Reserve Police Force at Bokajan, Assam was charge-sheeted on 27.11.1999 with the imputation that he was granted leave of 15 days from 3.8.1999 to 15.8.1999. He absented from duty for 42 days from 19.8.1999 to 30.9.1999 without permission of the competent authority. He has submitted the proof of illness and prior to this absence, he was also absent for 64 days from 26.4.1999 to 28.6.1999 on the ground of illness, which amounts to misconduct as per Section-11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 4. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 23.12.1999 to the respondent No. 2, stating that he was sent to Base Hospital Gauhati, Assam on 30.10.1999 by the commandant for treatment. He is recovering after operation of piles and he cannot submit his reply to the charge-sheet and he may be granted time till discharge from Hospital. 5. On 5.1.2000, the petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge-sheet, stating that due to dispute in the family and illness, he could not join his duty in time, but kept on sending information by registered post to the Commandant, informing about his problems. None of his leave applications were replied. He is not a habitual late comer. 5. On 5.1.2000, the petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge-sheet, stating that due to dispute in the family and illness, he could not join his duty in time, but kept on sending information by registered post to the Commandant, informing about his problems. None of his leave applications were replied. He is not a habitual late comer. An Enquiry Officer, respondent No. 3, was appointed to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and he submitted his enquiry report with the finding that the petitioner is found guilty of 42 days unauthorized absence from 20.8.1999 to 30.9.1999 without any justifiable reasons. From his leave record, it is clear that he was also absent without any reason from 26.4.1999. 28.6.1999 and therefore, he is habitual absentee and charges against him stand proved. On 1.5.2000, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner annexing therein that the enquiry report and the petitioner was granted 15 days time to submit reply to the same. The petitioner replied to the notice stating that his statement and reply submitted earlier contains all the necessary and relevant facts and he has noting to state further. 6. By the impugned punishment order dated 23.5.2000, the respondent No. 2 directed compulsory retirement of petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an Appeal on 8.6.2000, before the respondent No. 4 which was dismissed by the order dated 18.8.2000 and his revision was also dismissed by the respondent No. 5 by the order dated 1.1.2001. 7. The respondents have filed their Counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and has previously over stayed leave for 64 days without any permission and when he again absented for 42 days from 20.8.1999 to 30.9.1999, he was charge-sheeted and enquiry was conducted against him. He has taken the defence that he was forcibly detained by his relatives but he did not lodged any complaint against his relatives. He has committed serious misconduct and his appeal and revision has also been turned down. He has been given full opportunity of hearing and after proper enquiry he has been punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement, taking a lenient view, because of long service of the petitioner. 8. He has committed serious misconduct and his appeal and revision has also been turned down. He has been given full opportunity of hearing and after proper enquiry he has been punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement, taking a lenient view, because of long service of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that : (i) The compulsory retirement order dated 23.5.2000, has been passed under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949, but Section 11(1) of said Act, does not contain any punishment of compulsory retirement, Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act contains punishment of (1) reduction in rank (2) fine of any amount not exceeding one month pay and allowances (3) confinement to Quarter guard for not more than 28 days with or without punishment drill extra guard fatigue or other duty (4) remove from any office of distinction or special emoluments in the office. The impugned compulsory retirement order dated 23.6.2000 is totally against the provisions of Section 11(1) as such, the same is liable to be quashed. (ii) Section 10 of the C.R.P.F. act deals with less heinous offences, for which in case of over stay without permission, punishment for one year or fine, which may extend to 3 months pay or both is provided. The compulsory retirement order dated 23.5.2000 is totally against the law and Rule-27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules. (iii) The Appellate Authority did not exercise his power in deciding the departmental appeal and illegally dismissed the appeal without giving any reasonable cause on 14.8.2000, hence the impugned order dated 14.8.2000 also deserves to be quashed. (iv) The revisional authority also did not exercised his power, jurisdiction and scope of Revisional Jurisdiction and dismissed the Revision without application of mind, hence the Revisional Authority’s order also is bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. Per contra, Shri Tej Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondents, has argued that the charges against the petitioner were proved in the disciplinary enquiry and he was not fund to be a fit person to be retained in service of the force. However a lenient view was taken and he was compulsorily retired from service with benefits of compensation and gratuity under Rule 40 of C.C.S. Pension Rules, 1972, w.e.f, 24.5.2000 vide Office Order No. P.VIII. 12/99-85-EC. However a lenient view was taken and he was compulsorily retired from service with benefits of compensation and gratuity under Rule 40 of C.C.S. Pension Rules, 1972, w.e.f, 24.5.2000 vide Office Order No. P.VIII. 12/99-85-EC. II, dated 23.5.2000, under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule -27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955. The Appellate and Revisional Order have been passed after consideration of the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal and Revision. Therefore, the impugned punishment, appeal and revisional orders have been passed in the larger interest of disciplined forces and the petitioner deserves no relief from this Court being found to be habitual absentee from duty. 10. For appreciating the controversy raised in this writ petition, a perusal of Section-9 to 15 of the C.R.P.F. Act is required, OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS More heinous offences. 9. 10. For appreciating the controversy raised in this writ petition, a perusal of Section-9 to 15 of the C.R.P.F. Act is required, OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS More heinous offences. 9. Every member of the force who- (a) begins, excites, causes or conspires to cause or joins in any mutiny, or being present at any mutiny, does not use his utmost endeavour to suppress it, or knowing, or having reason to believe in, the existence of any mutiny, or of any intention or conspiracy to mutiny or of any conspiracy against the State does not, without delay, give information thereof to his superior officer; or (b) uses, or attempts to use, criminal force to, or commits an assault on, his superior officer, whether on or off duty, knowing or having or having reason to believe him to be such; or (c) shamefully abandons or delivers up any post or guard which is committed to his charge, or which it is his duty to defend ; or (d) directly or indirectly holds correspondence with, or assists or relieves any person in arms against the State or omits to discover immediately to his superior officer any such correspondence coming to his knowledge; or who, while on active duty,- (e) disobeys the lawful command of his superior officer; or (f) deserts the Force; or (g) being a sentry, sleeps upon his post or quits it without being regularly relieved or without leave; or (h) leaves his commanding officer, or his post or party, to go in search of plunder ; or (i) quits his guard, picquet, party or patrol without being regularly relieved or without leave; or (j) uses criminal force to, or commits an assault on, any person bringing provisions or other necessaries to campo or quarters, of forces a safeguard or breaks into any house or other place for plunder, or plunders, destroys or damages property of any kind; or (k) intentionally causes or spreads a false alarm in action or in camp, garrison or quarters; or (l) displays cowardice in the execution of his duty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or with fine which may extend to three months pay or with fine to that extent in addition to such sentence of transportation or imprison-ment. Less heinous offences 10. Less heinous offences 10. Every member of the force who- (a) is in a state of intoxication when on, or after having been warned for, any duty or on parade or on the line of march; or (b) strikes or attempts to force any sentry; or (c) being in command of a guard, piquet or patrol, refuses to receive any prisoner or person or person duly committed to his charge or without proper authority releases any person or prisoner placed under his charge or negligently suffers any such prisoner or person to escape; or (d) being under arrest or in confinement, leaves his arrest or confinement, before he is set at liberty by lawful authority; or (e) is grossly in-subordinate or insolent to his superior officer in the execution of his office ; or (f) refuses to superintend or assist in the making of any fieldwork or other work of any description ordered to be made either in quarters or in the field; or (g) strikes or otherwise ill-uses any member of the force subordinate to him in rank or position ; or (h) designedly or through neglect injures or loses or fraudulently disposes of his arms, clothes, tools, equipments, ammunition or accountrement or any such articles entrusted to him or belonging to any other person ; or (i) malingers or feigns or produces disease or infirmity in himself, or intentionally delays his cure, or aggravates his disease or infirmity; or (j) with intent to render himself or any other person unfit for service, voluntarily causes hurt to himself or any other person; or (k) does not, when called upon by his superior officer so to do or upon ceasing to be a member of the force forthwith deliver up, or duly account for, all or any arms, Ammunition, stores, account-rements or other property issued or supplied to him or in his custody or possession as such member; or (l) knowingly furnishes a false return or report of the number or state of any men under his command or charge or of any money, arms ammunition, clothing, equipments, stores or other property in his charge, whether belonging to such men or to the Government or to any member of or any (m) person attached to the force or who through design or culpable neglect, omit, or refuses to make or send any return or report of the matters aforesaid ; or (n) absent himself without leave, or without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him: or (o) is guilty of any act or omission which, though not specified in this Act, is prejudicial to good order and discipline: or (p) contravenes any provision of this Act for which no punishment is expressly provided: or who, while not on active duty : (q) commits any of the offences specified in clauses (e) to (l) (both inclusive) of Section 9 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three months pay, or with both. Minor punishments. 11. (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under 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 considered 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. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (b) of sub-section (l) ma y be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorised in this behalf by the Commandant. (3) The Assistant Commandant, a Company Officer or a Subordinate Officer, not being below the rank of Subedar or Inspector commanding a separate detachment or an outpost, or in temporary command at the headquarters of the force, may, without a formal trial, award to any member of the force who is for the time being subject to his authority any one or more of the following punishments for the commission of any petty offence against discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this Act or which is not of a sufficiently serous nature to require prosecution before a Crimnal Court that is to say : (a) confinement for not more that seven days in the quarterguard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances during its continuance; (b) punishment drill, or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days, with or without confinement to quarters, lines, or camp. (4) A Jemadar or Sub-Inspector who is temporarily in command of a detachment or an outpost may in like manner and for the commission of any like offence award to any member of the force for the time being subject to his authority any of the punishment specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) for not more than fifteen days. Place of imprisonment and liability to dismissal on imprisonment 12. (1) Every person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the force and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys due to him, as well as of any medals and decorations received by him. (2) Every such person shall, if he is so dismissed, be imprisoned in the prescribed prison, but if he is not also dismissed from the force he may if the Court of the Commandant so directs, be confined in the quarterguard or such other place as the Court or the Commandant may consider suitable. Deduction from pay and allowance 13. The following penal deductions may be made from the pay and allowances of a member of the force by his Company officer, that is to say— (a) all pay and allowances for every day of absence either on desertion or without leave and for every day of imprisonment awarded by a Criminal Court or of confinement awarded under Section 11; (b) all pay and allowances for every day whilst he is in custody on a charge for an offence of which he is afterwards convicted; (c) all pay and allowance for every day on which he is in hospital on account of sickness certified by the medical officer attending on him at the hospital to have been caused by an offence committed by him under that Act; (d) all pay and allowances ordered to be forfeit ed under Section 11; and (e) such sum as may be ordered by the Commandant or Assistant Commandant in order to make good any expenses caused by the member of the force, or any loss of or damage or destruction done by him to, any arms, ammunition, equipment, clothing, instruments, or decorations belonging to the force or to any buildings or property. Collective fine 14. Collective fine 14. Whenever any weapon, part of a weapon or ammunitions, forming part of the equipment of a company or other similar unit of the force is lost or stolen, the Commandant may, after making such inquiry as he thinks fit and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, impose a collective fine upon the subordinate officers and men of such unit, or upon so many of them as, in his judgment, should be held responsible for such loss or theft. Arrest 15. (1) Any member of the force who commits any offence specified in Section 9 or Section 10 may be placed on open or close arrest by any officer of the force. (2) Where any subordinate officer orders an arrest under sub-section (l), he shall forthwith or at the earliest opportunity report the arrest to his company or detachment Commander who shall after investigating the case order the release or the continued arrest of the member of the force arrested. 11. In the light of the above provisions of the C.R.P.F. Act, the first argument of the petitioner that there is no punishment of compulsory retirement under Section- 11 (1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, appears to be correct. Since there is no power vested in the Commandant under the aforesaid Section for imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. The power of imposing compulsory retirement is provided under Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 and the power to award compulsory retirement is vested in Deputy Inspector General of Police regarding officers above the rank of the Constables in Clause-6 mentioned in the Table under Rule 27 of the Rules aforesaid. 12. Under Section-10 (n) of the C.R.P.F. Act, the misconduct of absence without leave, are without sufficient cause over staying leave is mentioned and a punishment of a term which may extend to 1 years, or with fine which may extend to 3 months pay, or with both is provided. Further, under Section-13 (a) of the C.R.P.F. Act, there is provision for deduction of all pay and allowances for every day’s absence without leave and under Section-15, such a member of the force who commits any offence under Section 9 and 10 may be arrested by any office of the Force. Therefore, the second argument of the petitioner regarding applicability of Section-10 of C.R.P.F. Act to the case of the petitioner is correct. Therefore, the second argument of the petitioner regarding applicability of Section-10 of C.R.P.F. Act to the case of the petitioner is correct. The Counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out any provision under the Act which may justify the action of the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. 13. Regarding the third and fourth argument of the petitioner regarding the merits of the appellate and revisional orders, it needs to observe that once the punishment order itself has been found without sanction of law and the appellate and revisional authorities have confirmed the same, their orders too cannot be sustained. 14. Therefore, the impugned punishment, appellate and revisional orders are against the requirements of the statue and are illegal, ill considered and arbitrary and deserve to be quashed. However, since the findings of the enquiry officer in his enquiry report, that the charges of absence of 42 days from service without leave was proved against the petitioner and being finding of fact is not being interfered, therefore, the petitioner was liable for punishment under Section 10(n) of C.R.P.F. Act, by fine equal to 3 months pay and also deduction of 42 days pay and allowances, prevailing at the time of misconduct as per Section-13(a) of the C.R.P.F. Act. No imprisonment of the petitioner after about 14 years of his date of superannuation i.e., 7.1.2004, can be ordered under Section-10 of the Act aforesaid, hence the maximum fine of 3 months pay has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner shall be treated in continuous service and shall be paid all his pre and post retirement dues accordingly after deduction of the fine of 3 months pay and 42 days of pay and allowances uninfluenced by the punishment order dated 23.5.2000, passed by the respondent No. 2, which has already been quashed. 15. The writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.