The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who remained absent from duty for an extended period of 326 days without permission.

The Court dismissed the petition filed by the constable challenging the disciplinary action, ruling that the inquiry process followed due procedure and adhered to principles of natural justice.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that an employer is not obligated to undertake an exhaustive search to trace an absconding employee.

“An employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee in the whole world. It is enough if an employer sends the communications to an absconding employee at his residential address. This is what has been done by the respondents as well as the Inquiry Officer in the present case,” the Court remarked.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, who was serving as a Havaldar in the CRPF, had proceeded on a sanctioned five-day leave commencing on May 9, 2016. However, he failed to report back for duty even after the leave period ended. Citing health issues, he claimed to have relocated from his registered hometown in Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh, to another area within the district for medical treatment.

According to the petitioner, he was undergoing treatment during this period and was not in a position to respond to official communications. Meanwhile, he was dismissed from service on April 4, 2017, by the Commandant of his battalion for unauthorized absence.

Following the dismissal, the petitioner appealed the decision. The appellate authority, respondent No.4, partially accepted his appeal and reinstated him into service on February 9, 2018, modifying the punishment to the stoppage of two annual increments. However, this order was subsequently overturned by respondent No.3 on July 12, 2018, who reinstated the original penalty of dismissal. The petitioner then approached respondent No.2, who directed that a fresh inquiry be conducted in accordance with due procedure, including issuing a show-cause notice.

Respondent No.3, after issuing a fresh notice and considering the petitioner’s response, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement in place of dismissal.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner challenged the order on several grounds, including violation of natural justice, arguing that the departmental inquiry was conducted ex parte and he was never given an opportunity of being heard. He claimed that due to illness, he had changed his residence and thus did not receive any communication regarding the inquiry.

He further contended that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges and asserted that respondent No.3, acting as the revisional authority, did not have the power to enhance the penalty suo moto in the absence of a revision application filed by any party.

The petitioner argued that his health issues were genuine and not of a nature warranting such severe disciplinary action, especially considering that he had never been hospitalized and was treated as an outpatient.

Court’s Observations

Dismissing the petitioner’s claims, the Court held that there was no procedural infirmity in the departmental inquiry conducted by the respondents. Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that the inquiry officer and the employer had duly followed the process under the CRPF Rules and that communications were sent to the petitioner’s recorded address.

“The petitioner cannot take shelter behind the excuse that he had changed his address due to illness. It was his responsibility to inform the employer about such a change. In the absence of any such communication, the employer cannot be faulted for sending notices to the last known address,” the Court held.

With regard to the health issues cited by the petitioner, the Court held that the medical records did not indicate any serious illness that could have prevented him from contacting his superiors. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was never hospitalized and was treated as an outdoor patient.

The Court also rejected the contention that the revisional authority lacked power to enhance the punishment. Citing Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules, Justice Dhar noted that it expressly vests the revisional authority with suo moto jurisdiction to confirm, modify, or enhance punishments imposed upon members of the force.

Addressing the argument on the proportionality of the punishment, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Meghalaya vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak, which held that the discretion to impose appropriate punishment lies with the disciplinary authority and the courts should not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

Conclusion

Concluding that the petitioner was absent without leave for nearly a year without any valid justification or communication with the authorities, the Court found no reason to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against him. The punishment of compulsory retirement, the Court held, was commensurate with the nature and gravity of the misconduct. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

"Keeping these facts in view and having regard to the fact that the petitioner belongs to a disciplined Force like CRPF, any leniency in imposing punishment upon him for the nature of the charge which has been proved against him, would be detrimental to the discipline of the Force. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the impugned order of punishment passed by the revisonal authority against the petitioner is, in any manner, disproportionate to the charge established again him. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: HC/GD Harish Chander 45 Bn CRPF No. 913112122 v. UOI and Others [WP(C ) No. 2799/2019]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Manik Gupta

Respondent: Advocate R.S.Jamwal (CGSC)

Click here to read/download the Judgment




Justice Sanjay DharJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.