Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anand Sharma allowed a writ petition by a CRPF constable challenging departmental action arising from allegations of desertion, unauthorised absence during a training course, and related misconduct. The Court set aside the penalty of removal from service and the consequential appellate and revisional orders, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority, while limiting pay and other service benefits to a notional basis and denying actual monetary benefits for the intervening period. The Bench found that where a charge-sheet is founded on an incorrect charge, the State cannot later dilute or recast it to align with the enquiry outcome, and that the disciplinary authority must correctly classify the misconduct before initiating punitive proceedings.

The petitioner, a Constable (GD) appointed in 1995 in the Central Reserve Police Force, challenged the order dated 27.07.2002 imposing the penalty of removal from service, along with the appellate and revisional orders affirming the same.

Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects TN Cadre IPS Officer’s Claim For 2004 Rajasthan Cadre Insider Vacancy

The petitioner had served at CRPF Group Centre, Ajmer and later at B/100 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Ahmedabad. His service record included appreciation letters and awards for duties performed during sensitive deployments and disaster relief operations.

A charge-sheet dated 11.02.2002 levelled four charges: desertion from training camp between 17.11.2001 and 05.12.2001; residing outside the camp without permission; misconduct and indiscipline during training; and habitual indiscipline based on prior minor punishments.

The petitioner denied the allegations, asserting medical emergencies supported by hospital records, prior written permission to keep his family outside camp, and absence of willful misconduct. He relied on provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rules 27 and 31 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.

The respondents contended that the proceedings were disciplinary under Section 11 read with Rule 27, that adequate opportunity was given, and that the penalty was justified to maintain discipline.

The Court recorded: “At the outset, this Court finds merit in the contention that Charge No. 1 constituted the foundational charge, on the basis of which, the remaining charges were framed and the extreme penalty of removal from service was imposed.” “The language employed in the charge-sheet apparently characterises the petitioner’s conduct as “desertion”, which under the statutory scheme of the CRPF Act, 1949 carries a distinct legal connotation and far more severe consequences than mere unauthorised absence.”

The Court stated: “The submission of the respondents that the use of the term “deserter” is inconsequential and that the proceedings must be read as relating to absence without leave cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case.” “It is a settled principle that while form cannot override substance, the nature of the charge determines the standard of proof, procedural safeguards and proportionality of punishment.” “Where the charge-sheet itself proceeds on the premise that the delinquent has “deserted the Force”, the respondents cannot subsequently dilute or reinterpret the charge to suit the outcome of the enquiry.”

The Court recorded: “Such an admitted fact directly negates the essential element of animus deserendi, which is the sine qua non for constituting the offence of desertion under Section 9 of the CRPF Act, 1949.” “In the absence of an intention to permanently abandon service, a charge of desertion is legally unsustainable.”

The Court stated: “Further, the punishment of removal from service, imposed on a constable with a proven record of gallantry, dedication and appreciation, for alleged misconduct arising largely out of medical exigencies, is wholly disproportionate.” “Discipline cannot be enforced at the cost of fairness, reasonableness and humanity.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Calls For Nationwide Awareness Campaign Against Digital Scams, Flags Misuse Of Social Media User Data

The Court held that “writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. Impugned orders dated 27.07.2002, 08.11.2002, 01.01.2003, 21.03.2003 and 24.07.2003 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner by maintaining continuity of service and seniority. The petitioner shall not be entitled for actual monetary benefits for the intervening period and the benefits of pay-fixation as well as other benefits shall be granted to the petitioner only on notional basis. Necessary exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, Advocate with Ms. Priyansha Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, Advocate.

Case Title: Hans Raj Doi v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: RJ-JP:4635

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7778/2006

Bench: Justice Anand Sharma