Jammu & Kashmir High Court | Discipline Paramount in Uniformed Services | Dismissal of CRPF Constable for Desertion Upheld Under Section 11(1) CRPF Act, and Rule 27 CRPF Rules
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem has upheld the dismissal of a constable from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The Court dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the disciplinary action taken under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The Bench held that the disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with statutory provisions, observed no violation of natural justice, and confirmed that prolonged absence without sufficient cause constituted desertion. The Court directed that the dismissal order remain operative and declined to interfere with the decision of the Single Judge.
The appeal arose from a dispute concerning the termination of a constable from the CRPF. The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the 84 Battalion of the CRPF in 1994 and continued his service until 2001, when he reportedly faced medical difficulties. Following treatment, the appellant sought earned leave from 27 October 2005 to 5 December 2005, which was duly sanctioned.
Upon expiry of the sanctioned leave, the appellant failed to return to duty. He contended that his non-reporting was due to deteriorating health and claimed he had duly informed the authorities. However, the CRPF authorities recorded him as “Over Staying Leave” (OSL) from 6 December 2005 onwards. Notices were issued on multiple dates—14 December, 22 December, and 31 December 2005—directing him to report back to duty, failing which disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. The appellant neither responded nor rejoined.
On 9 January 2006, the Officer Commanding lodged a complaint before the Commandant of the 84 Battalion. The Commandant directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Baramulla, to apprehend the appellant. The SSP reported that the appellant was undergoing treatment in Jammu but attached medical certificates from the Government Psychiatric Hospital, Srinagar, contradicting the claim.
In June 2006, a Court of Inquiry was convened, and in July 2006, the appellant was declared a “deserter.” To ascertain the facts further, a CRPF personnel, HC/GD Mushtaq Ahmad, was deputed to visit the appellant’s residence. His statement revealed that the appellant was engaged in running a garment shop near his home, raising doubts about his claims of incapacity.
Subsequently, Articles of Charge were framed and dispatched to the appellant through registered post on 24 September 2006. An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 24 October 2006, and notice of departmental proceedings was sent to the appellant on 21 October 2006. He was directed to either appear or submit a written reply within 15 days, failing which the proceedings would continue ex parte. The appellant did not respond.
On 19 December 2006, the Enquiry Officer again issued communication requiring a response, and on 20 December 2006, copies of witness statements were forwarded to the appellant with an opportunity to file evidence. No reply was received. On 23 January 2007, a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the appellant, inviting his representation within 15 days. The appellant again failed to reply.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings, and the Commandant, being the competent authority, passed an order of dismissal on 26 February 2007. This dismissal was subsequently challenged before the Writ Court in SWP No. 1822/2013.
The appellant argued that his absence was involuntary, caused by medical conditions, and that he was never informed about the departmental enquiry. He contended that the enquiry was held in violation of natural justice and that his dismissal was disproportionate.
The Writ Court, however, found that the appellant had been duly notified and that procedural requirements were satisfied. It held that his conduct amounted to desertion. The Writ Court dismissed the petition on 15 October 2019.
The present appeal before the Division Bench challenged that dismissal.
The Division Bench examined the rival contentions and the record of proceedings. It noted: “Perusal of the record reveals that when on expiry of the leave period, Appellant failed to report back, notices/communications dated December 14, 2005, December 22, 2005 and December 31, 2005, respectively, came to be duly issued to the home address of the Appellant, directing him to report on duty, failing which disciplinary action will be initiated. The Appellant neither reported back nor responded to the said communications.”
The Bench recorded the further action: “The Officer Commanding, vide communication dated January 09, 2006, lodged a complaint against the Appellant in the Court of CJM-cum-Commandant-84 Bn, who on receipt of the complaint, vide letter dated January 28, 2006, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Baramulla to apprehend the Appellant… The SSP enclosed medical certificates issued by the Medical Superintendent, Government Psychiatric Hospital, Srinagar and not that of any hospital from Jammu.”
Regarding the Court of Inquiry and subsequent findings, the Bench noted: “After holding the Court of Inquiry, the Appellant was declared as ‘deserter’ vide Order dated July 30, 2006. … the Appellant, to the surprise of everybody, found to have been running a Garment shop near his residence.”
On departmental enquiry procedure, the Court recorded: “The Commanding Officer, C, 84 BN CRPF, vide letter dated October 21, 2006, intimated the Appellant about holding of Departmental Enquiry and nomination of Enquiry Officer … The Appellant was also asked to present before the Enquiry Officer or submit his reply … otherwise, the Enquiry shall be conducted ex-parte, but the Appellant neither responded nor turned up.”
“On December 20, 2006, the Enquiry Officer sent copies of the statement of witnesses recorded during Enquiry proceedings to the Appellant with a direction to submit his evidence within a period of 15 days, but, as per record, he did not respond.”
“Finally, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer … the Commandant, being the competent authority, after recording his findings, dismissed the Appellant from service vide Order dated February 26, 2007.”
On natural justice claims, the Court observed: “Therefore, the plea of the Appellant that the departmental proceedings have been conducted against him in violation of the principles of natural justice is not only misconceived, but also self-defeating, rather, it appears that the Appellant never intended to resume his duties, as he was found to have been running a Garment shop, which itself substantiates the act of grave misconduct.”
Concerning medical grounds, the Court stated: “All the medical prescriptions available on record beyond any doubt shows that the Appellant, all along, got treatment as an outdoor patient and, thus, the Writ Court rightly took note of the said fact in the impugned Judgment.”
On attempts to mislead, it was recorded: “The communication of SSP, Baramulla, rather casts a cloud on the conduct of the Appellant, as his family members tried to mislead the SSP … therefore, it shows the mala fide on the part of the Appellant, so as to conceal himself from being apprehended and also attempt to generate false evidence.”
On proportionality of punishment, the Bench relied on precedents: “From the above noted authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, there remains no iota of doubt that a member of uniformed force, who overstays his leave and never reports for duties, must be treated as a ‘deserter’, therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service of such member of uniformed force cannot be described as disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.”
“It goes without saying that the Appellant, being a member of a disciplined Force, is expected to observe a high standard of discipline and, if he is found lacking in any manner, then, undoubtedly, he is required to be dealt with sternly.”
The Court concluded that there was no error of fact or law in the Writ Court’s decision. The Division Bench held: “For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error of fact or law committed by the Writ Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition vide impugned Judgment under challenge, therefore, same does not call for any interference.”
It directed that the appeal be dismissed: “Accordingly, the instant appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Interim direction(s), if any, subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.”
It further directed the return of records: “The record produced by the Respondents be returned to them through their Counsel, with due dispatch.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr Nisar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Ms Rehana Qayoom, Advocate
Case Title: Nasir Ahmad Parray v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC-SGR:233
Case Number: LPA No. 300/2019 in SWP No. 1822/2013
Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma, Justice Shahzad Azeem
