Palok Basu and R.R.K. Trivedi, JJ. - (1.) MADAN Tiwari has challenged his dismissal order dated 17.8.1991 passed by the Commandant, 7 Battalion, Central Reserve Police' Force and also the appellate order dated 2.12.1991 passed by the appellants authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Rampur, U. P. The petitioner was charge -sheeted on the allegations of having abused his superior officer and being drunk while on duly and further that he aimed his rifle at another constable. While hearing the instant writ petition, the learned single Judge was of the view that the decision of a Division Bench in Giriraj Sharma v. Union of India, and others, 1989 (1) UPLBEC 351 was not in accordance with the objectives and intentions behind Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act [for short, the Act). When the matter went to the Division Bench headed by one of us (Hon. R.R.K. Trivedi, J.), the said Division Bench recommended that since Giriraj Sharma case (supra) was a Division Bench decision, the matter should go before a large Bench. This is how this Full Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(2.) DR . R.G. Padia assisted by Sri Prakash Padia has been heard at length in support of this writ petition. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents as also Sri Ashok Mehla, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. who appeared as an intervenor, have also been heard and the entire record has been examined thoroughly. Dr. R.G. Padia developed his arguments in the following manner. He first proceeded to lay stress on the fact that the petitioner was a permanent member of the Force as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. He then proceeded to rely upon the language used in Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 and proceeded to argue that a case of dismissal and removal of a permanent member of the Force cannot be deemed to be a minor punishment. Dr. Padia attempted to confine the applicability of Section 18 of the Act to making of R. and Regulations for conditions of service. Relying upon the provisions of Civil Service (Classification. Control and Appeal) R., he further argued that dismissal and removal cases should be termed as major punishments as they cannot be minor punishments and thus placing strong reliance on the Division Bench decision in the case of Giriraj Sharma (supra) said that the order of dismissal of the petitioner is wrong and, therefore, the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order confirming the dismissal order should be quashed.
(3.) LASTLY , he has submitted that this Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quash the dismissal order and the appellate order confirming the same.;