“J&K High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of CRPF Havaldar ;‘Employer Not Required to Launch Manhunt When Employee Fails to Disclose New Address’”
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a petition challenging the CRPF’s order imposing compulsory retirement. The Court held that the revisional authority acted within the bounds of its statutory powers under Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. It held that the authority was not required to act only upon a petition from the aggrieved and that suo moto revision, including enhancement of punishment, was legally permissible. The Court also found no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice in the conduct of the departmental inquiry or the revisionary proceedings.
The petitioner, a Havaldar/GD of the 45th Battalion CRPF, challenged an order dated 07.03.2019 issued by the revisional authority (respondent No. 3), which imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The order also set aside a prior decision dated 09.02.2018 passed by the appellate authority (respondent No. 4), which had reinstated the petitioner with a lesser penalty.
The petitioner had initially joined CRPF on 01.04.1991 and was posted at Sumbal, Bandipora, Kashmir. On 09.05.2016, he availed five days of leave, due to resume duty on 14.05.2016. He failed to report back, allegedly due to illness, and shifted from his registered address to an urban location for treatment. Subsequently, a Court of Inquiry was ordered, and the petitioner was declared a deserter on 24.08.2016. A departmental inquiry was initiated under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
A memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner on 06.09.2016, sent via registered post. He was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer, but failed to do so. An ex parte departmental inquiry was conducted. The inquiry concluded with findings against the petitioner, and on 04.04.2017, he was dismissed from service.
Upon appeal, the appellate authority modified the penalty, reinstating the petitioner and imposing a stoppage of two annual increments from 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2020. This order was kept in abeyance and subsequently set aside by the revisional authority on 12.07.2018, restoring the dismissal. The petitioner then submitted a representation to a higher authority, which remanded the case for a fresh decision. Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice and, after considering the petitioner’s response, passed the final order imposing compulsory retirement.
The petitioner alleged that no proper notice was served during the inquiry, that the inquiry was ex parte and procedurally flawed, and that Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules did not permit suo moto revision. He also argued that the offence did not merit the punishment imposed and that the revisional authority had improperly re-evaluated the facts already assessed by the appellate authority.
The respondents maintained that due process under Rule 27 was followed. They submitted evidence that all communications, including inquiry notices and the charge-sheet, were sent via registered post to the petitioner’s official address but returned undelivered. The petitioner never updated his address nor responded to the notices. They emphasized that disciplinary proceedings, including appointment of Inquiry and Presenting Officers, and issuance of warning letters, were conducted in compliance with rules. They also highlighted that the petitioner had previously been punished eight times for similar conduct.
The Court examined the scope of Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. In particular, it recorded:
“From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that as per clause (a), revisional power can be exercised by a superior authority only at the instance of a member of Force whose appeal has been rejected...However, sub-rule (d) of Rule 29 vests power with the Director General or Additional Director General or the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General to call for the records... and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same.”
The Court referred to precedent from its own earlier ruling in Madan Gopal Singh v. UOI and held:
“Though words suo moto have not been mentioned in clause(d) but it can be inferred... that a suo moto power of revision has been vested on the officers... and this power is not controlled by or subject to the limitations found in the clauses (a) to (c)...”
On the issue of procedural fairness, the Court stated:
“The respondents have sent through registered post the communication asking the petitioner to join his duties... However, all these communications were returned undelivered with the report that the petitioner had left the address.”
The Court found that the petitioner had not disclosed or communicated his new address during the relevant period. It recorded: “The petitioner has not whispered even once in his petition that he has... informed the respondents about his new address... In fact, the record shows that the petitioner was treated as an outpatient and was never hospitalized.”
On the proportionality of punishment, the Court noted: “It has been proved against the petitioner that he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for 326 days... He has previously been punished for overstaying his leave on as many as 08 occasions.”
It concluded: “Keeping these facts in view and having regard to the fact that the petitioner belongs to a disciplined Force like CRPF, any leniency... would be detrimental to the discipline of the Force.”
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Let the record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manik Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R.S. Jamwal, Central Government Standing Counsel
Case Title: HC/GD Harish Chander v. UOI and Others
Case Number: WP(C) No. 2799/2019
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
