- (1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appeal has been preferred by the Union of India. The petitioner was enrolled in the C.R.P.F. on 1.3.1972. It was the case of the appellant that the respondent was deployed in the 41 Bn. of C.R.P.F. on 22/23.9.1989, a special operation was conducted against the terrorist at Sarahali Mand area of Patti, District Amritsar. The respondent was also a part of this operation. It is alleged that an encounter ensued with the Terrorists after which one round of .303 was accidentally fired by the respondent from his GF Rifle. Thereafter, article of charges were issued to the respondent and after taking into consideration the reply filed by the respondent, the services of the respondent were terminated.
(2.) Aggrieved by the said termination, the respondent filed a writ petition in this Court which was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge with the following directions :- "Resultantly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders are set aside to the extent that the removal of the petitioner from service has been ordered, are set-aside. The respondents-authorities will, however, be at liberty to impose one of the minor punishments as indicated in Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949. It is hoped that while considering the imposition of minor punishment, if any, the respondents would keep in mind the length of service of the petitioner, who was enrolled in CRPF on 1.3.1972. The incident which occurred on 25.9.1989 and also the fact finding that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner. Besides the writ petition has been pending in this Court since 1993. The petitioner will be entitled to the consequential benefits as a result of the impugned orders being set aside to the extent that he has been removed from service. The same would of course be subject to any minor punishment that may be inflicted upon the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs."
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the finding of learned Single Judge in so far as it interprets Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') is contrary to the views taken by the Supreme Court as well as various other High Courts of the country. It has been contended before us that the imposition of penalties as contemplated under Section 11(1) of the Act was in lieu or in addition to suspension or dismissal and, therefore, it cannot be said that Section 11(1) of the Act only deals with the minor penalties.;