T. S. Doabia, J. - (1.)The petitioner was working with the Indo-Tibetan Border Police. He absented himself. This led to departmental proceedings being initiated against him. Ultimately, an order of dismissal was passed. Copy of this is Annexure P/4. The petitioner preferred an appeal. In appeal, the appellate authority altered the quantum of punishment and passed an order to the effect that the petitioner would stand reduced to rank of Nk/Gd. This reduction was to operate only for a period of one year. The period of absence of one year and 49 days was regularised by grant of leave of the kind due at the credit of the petitioner. It is this order which is being challenged in the present petition.
(2.)The basic argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as punishment of reduction of rank has been imposed, therefore it was incumbent upon the respondents to hold departmental enquiry and for this reliance is being placed on the rules framed under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. It is not in dispute that these rules govern the service conditions of the petitioner. Rule 27(7) is being reproduced hereinbelow as it is relevant:-
''27. Procedure for the Award of Punishments :

xx xx xx xx xx

(i) In case it is proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank on a member of the force, the authority competent to impose the penalty shall supply the member concerned with a copy of the report of the enquiry and call upon him to show cause within a reasonable time not less than one week and not exceeding one month against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted. Any representation made by him shall be taken into consideration before passing the final orders.''

(3.)The petitioner may be right in contending that where an order of reduction in rank is passed, then enquiry is required to be held but the question is whether this punishment has in fact been imposed in this case or not. Even though the term used in the order Annexure P/6 is ''reduction in rank'' it be seen that it has been mentioned in Annexure P/6 that this will operate for one year only. Virtually it amounts to forfeiture of one year service on the higher post. It will not be reduction in rank as the term is commonly understood under the Constitution or in service jurisprudence. As such, I am of the view that no fault can be found with the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities.