Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) The order dated 1.11.1996 at Annexure-1 to the writ petition has been challenged herein in the following factual background.
(2.) The petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force as constable in the year 1981. After a charge-sheet dated 1.5.1995 was issue and a proceeding took place, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report whereupon the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of charge of over-stay without permission of the competent authority an imposed punishment of dismissal from service under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the said Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was decided by the Appellate Authority by order dated 29.1.1996 whereby the Appellate Authority by order dated 29.1.1996 whereby the punishment order was set aside and the intervening period from the date of dismissal till the date of joining the duty was directed to be decided on merits as per provisions contained in F.R. 54. The petitioner was accordingly reinstated and joined his service. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 1.11.1996 was passed by the respondent in purported exercise of power under Rule 29 (d) of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The said Rule 29 (d) runs as follows:- "29. (d) The 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 order: Provided that in a case in which it is proposed to enhance punishment, the accused shall be given an opportunity to' shown cause either orally or in writing as to why his punishment should be enhanced."
(3.) Respondents filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner filed rejoined affidavit.;