P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India representing Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the appellants; and Mr. Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, learned counsel representing Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The instant Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Central Reserve Police Force Department (for short the ‘Department’) assailing the order passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.6151 of 2014, decided on 20.12.2024.

3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Bench has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondents by setting aside the order of punishment dated 15.12.2008, whereby in exercise of the powers vested upon the disciplinary authority under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short ‘CRPF Act’) had imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the three respondents.

4. The brief facts which led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and which culminated in the issuance of the punishment of compulsory retirement are that the respondent No.1 was working as a Sub-Inspector and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were working as Constables in the Department. The respondents were working at Headquarters, 141 Battalion, Sarangpur. The incident is said to be dated 08.01.2008, when it is alleged that the respondent No.1 namely Manjeet Singh, Head Constable, is said to have failed to ensure safe possession of the ammunition of 5.56 MM Insas rifle. It is the contention of the Department that on the given date 60 rounds of ammunition were issued to him for government duty, however at the time of reporting back it was found that, of the 60 rounds issued to him 4 of them got misplaced or lost. The further contention of the Department is that later on respondent Nos.2 and 3 connived together and made available 4 live rounds of ammunition of 5.56 MM Incas rifle, of which the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were in illegal possession. After all this occurred, the Department issued the three respondents with a charge memo dated 05.04.2008. The three respondents were charged with a common charge memo framing 4 charges. For ready reference and for convenience, the articles of charges leveled against the three respondents are reproduced hereunder:

               “STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST No. 800030194 SI/GD MANJIT SINGH SINGH. No. 911131307 CT/GD KULDEEP SINGH AND No. 031410138 CT/GD GOKUL BORO OF 141 BN, CRPF.

               ARTICLE - I

               That the said No. 800030194 HC/GD (Now SI/GD) Manjit Singh of 141 Bn CRPF, while posted in the unit and functioning as HC(GD) at HQ 141 Bn Sarangpur during the period Jan 2008, committed an act of remissness in the discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member of the Force, punishable Under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. 1949, in that he failed to ensure safe possession of the ammunition of 5.56 MM Insas rifle - 60 rounds issued to him for Govt duty and lost four live rounds out of sixty.

               ARTICLE - II

               That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said No. 800030194 HC/GD (Now SI/GD) Manjit Singh of 141 Bn CRPF was guilty of neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the Force punishable Under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, in that he failed to report the loss (four live rounds) of the ammunition of 5.56 MM Insas to his seniors and superior officers.

               ARTICLE-III

               That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said No 800030194 HC(GD) (Now SI/GD) Manjit Singh of 141 Bn CRPF committed an act of serious misconduct punishable U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he hatched a conspiracy by coaxing No. 911131307 CT/GD Kuldeep Singh, G/141 Bn and No. 031410138 CT/GD Gokul Boro, E/141 Bn to adjust the loss of four live rounds of 5.56 INSAS instantly to enable him to get promoted to the rank to SI(GD), which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.

               ARTICLE - IV

               That the said No. 91l131307 CT/GD Kuldeep Singh of G/141 and No. 031410138 CT/GD Gokul Boro of F/141 Bn CRPF while during posted in the unit and functioning as CTs(GD) at HQ/141 Bn Srarangpur during the period Jan 2008, committed an act of serious misconduct in discharge of their duty as a member of the Force, in that they were holding some extra ammunitions unauthorizedly and passed them to No. 800030194 HC/GD (Now SI/GD) Manjit Singh to adjust the ammunition lost by the said HC/GD and thereby facilitating his promotion to the rank of SI/GD, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.”

5. The three respondents entered appearance and categorically denied the charges leveled, including the denial of shortage of 4 ammunitions, which was the very basis of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the three respondents. Subsequently, the Department decided to have a departmental enquiry conducted. In the enquiry, the respondent No.1 pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against him, whereas, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 pleaded guilty of the charges framed. However, subsequently respondent Nos.2 and 3 also retracted from their pleading guilty of the charges and denied the entire allegation with a statement that the earlier statement was made not understanding the consequences and not having read the statement that has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer insofar as pleading of guilt. Finally, the Enquiry Officer gave report of the charges leveled against the three respondents to be found proved. Based upon the same, the punishment order dated 15.12.2008 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the three respondents was issued.

6. The development which took place in between was placing the respondent No.1 under suspension and initiation of the disciplinary proceedings being subjected to challenge before this High Court vide Writ Petition No.18634 of 2008. The said Writ Petition got disposed of on 28.08.2008, whereby it was held as under:

               “The petitioner is working as a Sub-Inspector in C.R.P.F. The Commandant, 141 C.R.P.F. Battalion, the fifth respondent herein, through order, dated 16.02.2008, placed the petitioner under suspension. The allegation against the petitioner is that on account of his negligence, he lost four live rounds of 5.56 M.M. Insas Rifle and to cover up that, he had approached Sri Kuldeep Singh, and Sri Gokul Boro, of the said Battalion. A Memorandum of Charge, with necessary articles was issued on 05.04.2008. The petitioner states that the order of suspension and the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him is contrary to Rule 35 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules').

               Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

               The suspension of the petitioner is on the allegation that he not only lost four live rounds supplied to him, but also tried to procure such rounds from other members of the service, to cover up his lapse. Therefore, the suspension cannot be said to be without any basis.

               It is no doubt true that the procedure to be followed in the matters of loss or damage to Arms and Ammunition to property is prescribed under Rule 35 of the Rules. There is no reason to believe that the respondents would not follow the said Rule in the case of the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner can be said to have any grievance in this regard, if only any order is passed or any steps are taken contrary to the said provision.

               Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, but directing that the respondents shall take into account Rule 35 of the Rules, while dealing with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.”

7. Subsequently, a Contempt Case viz., Contempt Case No.1573 of 2010 was also filed for non-compliance of the observations made in the aforesaid Writ Petition. The said Contempt Case also stood closed on 08.11.2010, whereby the Bench hearing the Contempt Case has held as under, by which time the punishment order dated 15.12.2008 already got passed:

               “The disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner have been concluded, and it is stated that the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. It is only when any writ petition is filed, challenging the order of compulsory retirement, that it can be examined whether the relevant Rules were taken into account. Further, the direction issued by this Court is, to keep Rule 35 of the Rules, in view. It does not mean that the order should have been passed in a particular way.

               The Contempt Case is, therefore, closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to assail the orders passed against him in the disciplinary proceedings.”

8. The contention of the respondents before the Writ Court was that the so-called act alleged against the respondents is not one which could be brought within the purview of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act; rather it is a case which would squarely fit in the provisions of Rule 35 of the CRPF Rules. The stand of the respondents got fortified from the observations made by the learned Single Bench hearing the Writ Petition at the first instance i.e. Writ Petition No.18634 of 2008, decided on 28.08.2008, as also the Contempt Case No.1573 of 2010, decided on 08.11.2010.

9. Now for a proper understanding of the dispute, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act as also the Rule 35 of the CRPF Rules. For ready reference, Section 11(1) and Rule 35 are reproduced hereunder:

               “11. Minor punishments.—(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.”

               “35. Loss or damage to arms, ammunition and property.— 1) In all cases of loss or serious damage to arms, ammunition or other Government property, where such loss or damage exceeds Rs. 100 in the case of arms and ammunition, and Rs. 500 in the case of other Government property, the Commandant shall assemble a Court of Inquiry consisting of the Assistant Commandant (if available) or the senior superior officer present as the president and two superior or subordinate officers as members.

               2) The Court shall inquire into the case, record evidence and submit findings in Form A.F.A. 2 to the Commandant.

               3) On receipt of the findings under sub-rule (2), the Commandant may, if the total value of the loss or damage does not exceed Rs. 1,000 pass orders that the loss or damage be written off.

               4) If the total value of the loss exceeds Rs. 1,000 but does not exceed Rs. 2,000, the Commandant shall submit the findings to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police who may pass orders for writing off such loss or damage.

               5) If the total value of the loss exceeds Rs. 2,000, the Commandant shall submit the findings through the Deputy Inspector-General of Police to the Inspector-General of Police or the Director-General, as the case may be, within the competence of such authority, as provided for in the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, or other orders as may be notified from time to time, who may pass orders for writing off such loss or damage.

               6) In case of loss or damage to arms and ammunition or other Government property where such loss or damage does not exceed Rs. 100 in the case of arms and ammunition and Rs. 500 in the case of other Government property, it shall be dealt with the Commandant in the Orderly Room after a summary enquiry by a Gazetted Officer.]”

10. Keeping in view the aforesaid two provisions and referring them the learned Single Bench took a view that when a rule contemplates the procedure to be adopted, it is the said rule which has to be followed and in the event of the rule prescribed not being adhered to, the result cannot be sustained and as a consequence the learned Single Bench reached to the following conclusion:

               “22. Having perused the entire record, Rule 35 of CRPF Rules, 1955 and Section 10 (h) of CRPF Act, 1949, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 15.12.2008, passed by the Deputy Inspector General and order dated 26.08.2009, passed by the Appellate Authority are unsustainable and they are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Needless to state that respondents are at liberty to conduct fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

               23. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. It is made clear that respondents shall initiate fresh proceedings and pass orders within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.”

11. It is this order passed by the learned Single Bench which is under challenge by the Department in the instant appeal.

12. The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Department was that the finding of the learned Single Bench is erroneous and contrary to law, as Rule 35 is not the provision under which the respondents have to be proceeded on the disciplinary side, rather Rule 35 is an administrative function which is to be exercised by the Department in the event of loss and damages caused to the arms and ammunitions and also the property of the Government. Whereas, the procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings is one under Section 11(1) read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Act and Rules respectively.

13. Drawing the attention of the Bench to the nature of allegations leveled against the respondents, it was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the lapse that has occurred on the part of the respondents is grave and serious having far-reaching ramifications which the learned Single Bench has not appreciated.

14. It was also contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the respondents have failed to discharge their duties diligently inasmuch as the respondent No.1 has failed to ensure proper safety and security to the arms and ammunitions under his control and further indulging in an illegal activity to cover up the incident by producing live ammunitions to make good the so-called loss of arms and ammunitions, which again is an act which is not befitting a person belonging to the uniformed force. Further, the so-called misconduct committed by the three respondents being unbecoming of a person of disciplined uniformed force and which also involves the safety and security issues, the Department has rightly initiated the proceedings under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, and on finding of the enquiry conducted after due compliance of the principles of natural justice, the order of punishment imposed by the Department could not had been interdicted by the learned Single Bench.

15. It was also the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that neither in the entire Writ Petition, nor in the course of arguments, have the respondents taken the plea of enquiry being either defective or being in contravention to the principles of natural justice. Moreover, when the veracity of the departmental enquiry is not under challenge, likewise there being no allegation of denial of natural justice or the respondents having been deprived of the opportunity of defense, the safest inference that can be drawn is that the enquiry was perfectly justified and under the said circumstances the scope of interference with an order of punishment gets reduced to the minimal.

16. During the course of arguments, the question of law which fell for consideration before the Bench was, “whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the three respondents was one which was permitted to have passed invoking the powers under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act or not?”

17. Before dealing with the said issue, it would be pertinent to take note of the charges leveled against the delinquent employees.

18. Articles of charge No.1 is pertaining to committing an act of remissness in the discharge of duty as a member of the armed force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.

19. Articles of charge No.2 is in respect of being showing neglect of duty as a member of the armed force for the reason of having failed to report loss of 4 live ammunitions of 5.56 MM Incass rilfe, an act which again is punishable under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.

20. Articles of charge No.3 also is in respect of committing an act of serious misconduct in the form of hatching a conspiracy along with the other charged officers so as to overcome the loss of 4 live cartridges by adjusting the loss on the basis of 4 rounds of ammunitions being provided to respondent No.1, by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which is otherwise illegal and impermissible. This act also is one which is said to be punishable under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. The respondent Nos.2 and 3, by participating in the conspiracy and assisting respondent No.1, have enabled the respondent No.1 to get promotion from the post of Head Constable to Sub-Inspector. Thus, the act of three delinquent employees was prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force.

21. As regards the charge No.4, it is alleged by the Department of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 having committed an act of serious misconduct in firstly holding with them some extra ammunitions unauthorizedly and passing it to respondent No.1 to adjust the loss of ammunitions leveled against the respondent No.1 and thereby facilitating respondent No.1’s promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector, which is an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force.

22. With the aforesaid fact of the Department subsequently enumerating in the charge memo itself that for the act committed by the three respondents they are liable to be punished under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, what next to be seen is “could the penalty of compulsory retirement be passed invoking the powers under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act?”

23. Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act is one which indicates minor punishment. The minor punishment which can be imposed under Section 11(1) again for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:

               (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.

24. Thus, from the aforesaid facts certain things which stand undisputed are that the penalty of compulsory retirement is not one which is envisaged under Section 11(1). The penalty of compulsory retirement is not envisaged in Section 11(1) would go to establish that it is not a minor punishment, and if not minor punishment, it is definitely a major punishment. In the charge memo the Department has indicated the so-called misconduct on the part of the respondents to be an act which is otherwise punishable under Section 11(1) alone. Therefore, prima facie we are of the considered view that compulsory retirement is not a minor punishment.

25. Now another aspect which needs to be considered is the provisions relating to offences and punishment as is envisaged under Section 9 as also Section 10 of the CRPF Act. Section 9 deals with or indicates the details of more heinous offences which a member of the force commits and for which he could be prosecuted and penalized with the punishment that of imprisonment envisaged in Section 9 itself. Similarly, Section 10 deals with less heinous offences and the nature of offences which would fall within the ambit of less heinous offences, which again is a penal provision, that too, of imprisonment, but the imprisonment here is for a short duration as compared to the sentences that are imposed under Section 9. Similarly, Section 11 deals with the imposition of minor punishment, and minor punishment are those reflected in Section 11(1).

26. To understand things more clearly, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the nature of acts which according to the Department itself would amount to less heinous offence or act. Some of the less heinous offences specified under Section 10 which could be relevant for decision making of the present appeal are Section 10(h), (l) & (n). For ready reference, they are reproduced hereunder:

               “10. Less heinous offences.—Every member of the Force who—

               (h) designedly or through neglect injures or loses or fraudulently disposes of his arms, clothes, tools, equipments, ammunition or accoutrements, or any such articles entrusted to him or belonging to any other person; 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 person attached to the Force, or who, through design or culpable neglect, omits or refuses to make or send any return or report of the matters aforesaid; or

               (n) is guilty of any act or omission which, though not specified in this Act, is prejudicial to good order and discipline; or”

27. If we read the aforesaid offences which are of the category of less heinous and just opposite if we read the articles of charges leveled against the respondents from the charge memo, which again are reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, we would have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct committed by the respondents to a great extent falls within the act / offence enumerated under Section 10(h), (l) & (n).

28. If we look into the rules governing the field, Rule 27 deals with the procedure of imposing penalties and under Rule 27 itself the framers of law have depicted a chart showing the punishment which could be imposed upon the officers and personnel of different ranks who would be the authority who can pass orders and whether the punishment reflected in the table therein can be inflicted with or without formal departmental enquiry to be conducted. The table also reflects the officers who are competent to pass orders.

29. Primarily Rule 27 is only laying down the procedure and the authorities who can pass the orders. It is not a substantive provision empowering an authority to pass an order, rather it is only a procedural aspect prescribed as to how the disciplinary proceedings have to be drawn and who are the authorities who can impose punishment referred therein.

30. Similar is the case of Rule 35, which again lays down as to how the loss or damage to arms, ammunitions and property has to be dealt with.

31. In the opinion of this Bench, Rule 35 is not what is intended for a disciplinary proceeding, neither is it contemplating the disciplinary proceeding in the event of finding the loss and damages caused to the arms and ammunitions as also to the other government properties. In the opinion of this Bench, Rule 35 is more in the nature of an administrative function and does not indicate anywhere of initiating any action for the loss suffered, rather it is primarily a decision to be taken at the departmental level writing off all the losses and damages which have occurred and also specifies the quantum so far as which authority to pass orders to what extent. The view of this Bench gets fortified from the nature of offences those are reflected in clause 10(h).

32. Thus, we are confident of the fact that Rule 35 cannot be invoked for disciplinary proceedings and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench to the extent of invoking Rule 35 for disciplinary action against the respondents would not be sustainable and the finding to the aforesaid extent would not be justifiable nor sustainable. However, as regards the ground which fell for consideration during the course of hearing was ‘in respect of the authority of the Department at the first instance and secondly whether such a power or order that has been passed could had been passed?’

33. As has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, once when the nature of act or misconduct under the statute itself falls within the category of a less heinous offence i.e. the offence reflected in Section 10(h), (l) & (n), the question which falls for consideration is in the given statutory provisions applicable upon the respondents, could the Department on its own at the time of passing of the punishment in a case where disciplinary proceedings having been passed under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act treat the misconduct to be that of a major misconduct and impose a major punishment.

34. There can be no dispute to the extent of the penalty of compulsory retirement being a major penalty. If the Department itself under the statute has termed similar acts of misconduct to be less heinous offence under Section 10, it is difficult to accept the stand of the Department in the course of treating the said act as a major misconduct entailing a major punishment for disciplinary actions.

35. Now if we read Section 11(1) in the context of the nature of misconduct, it is necessary to read the provision of Section 11(1) again and again. At the cost of repetition, we intend to reproduce the first part of Section 11(1) hereunder:

               “11. Minor punishments.—(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 :-

36. A plain reading of the said provision goes to show that the intention of the framers of the said law was that in a given case, the commandant or any other authority as may be prescribed under the CRPF Act, can award in addition to suspension or dismissal any one or more of the punishments envisaged under Section 11(1) from clauses (a) to (e) in the said Section. Clauses (a) to (e) again at the cost of repetition is reproduced hereunder:

               (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.

37. If we read the whole of Section 11(1) what is clearly indicated therein is that in a given case, the disciplinary authority as is prescribed under Rule 27 can, in addition to the order of suspension or an order of dismissal, if at all intend to pass any punishment, it can only be those which are referred to above from clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 11.

38. Admittedly, compulsory retirement does not fall under any of the punishments specified and enumerated under clauses (a) to (e). Now reading the nature of misconduct alleged, keeping in view the clauses (h), (l) & (n) of Section 10, would force us to infer that the allegations leveled against the respondents squarely falls in Section 10. If for prosecution purpose, the offences committed by the respondents fall under less heinous offences for disciplinary purposes, definitely it cannot be presumed to be a major misconduct. Admittedly, all the respondents delinquent officers have been punished invoking the powers under Section 11(1) and at no point of time were they communicated of the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement. Similarly, they were also not served with the second show cause notice along with the enquiry report.

39. Another aspect which has to be considered is that in the table reflected under Rule 27, for personnel holding the post of Sub-Inspector, the disciplinary action needs to be taken by the DIGP. Whereas, in respect of the Constables and other personnel, the disciplinary powers have to be exercised by the Commandant. In the instant case, the punishment order is one which has been issued by the DIGP i.e. by an Officer over and above the rank of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the element of competence and jurisdiction of the DIGP’s order in respect of the Constables also seems to have not been considered. Once when the procedure under the statute prescribes an authority to take a disciplinary action, the same cannot be exercised by anybody else, nor can it be diluted or delegated.

40. In the instant case, even in respect of the personnel belonging to the rank of Constable have been inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement by superior officer of the rank of DIGP is also one which is going against the Department.

41. All these facts had not been raised when the Writ Petition was filed at the first instance, nor was it the grounds that were reflected in the pleadings of the Writ Appeal, and in the process the Department has also not got a chance to give counter to the aforesaid legal proposition which now canvassed and addressed in the course of the final hearing. It would not be fair for this Bench at this juncture to decide the same on the basis of all these facts and legal grounds. It would be more appropriate if we remit the matter back to the learned Single Bench to take up this matter again in the teeth of the findings and opinions expressed by this Bench in the instant Writ Appeal, and after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the respondents, let another order be passed in accordance with law.

42. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.6151 of 2014, decided on 20.12.2024, and remit the matter back to the learned Single Bench for a fresh consideration of the merits of the case in accordance with law at the earliest.

43. With the aforesaid observations, the instant Writ Appeal stands partly allowed.

44. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.