Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the legality of Respondent 3-Revisional authority’s order dated 07-03-2019 which imposed suo moto compulsory retirement, in light of the procedural requirements under the CRPF Rules, 1955, a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., upheld the suo moto power of the revisional authority under Rule 29(d) of CRPF Rules, held that the inquiry proceedings had complied with the principles of natural justice, and found the punishment proportionate to the misconduct.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner was enlisted in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 01-04-1991 as a Havaldar (General Duty) and was last posted with the 45th Battalion CRPF at Sumbal, District Bandipora, Kashmir. On 09-05-2016, the petitioner proceeded on five days leave, expected to report back on 14-05-2016. However, due to illness and compelling circumstances, the petitioner failed to resume duty. He allegedly left his registered address in Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh, and relocated to Ward No.3 Ambara, a place 80 km away, for treatment. The Commandant, 45th Battalion, issued an order on 04-04-2017, dismissing the petitioner from service for overstaying leave without authorization and being declared a ‘deserter’ under CRPF norms.
The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent 4, who, vide order dated 09-02-2018, modified the punishment, reinstated the petitioner into service, and imposed a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments from 01-07-2018 to 30-06-2020. Vide order dated on 21-02-2018, respondent 3-Revisional Authority kept reinstatement order in abeyance and subsequently, vide order dated 12-07-2018, set aside the reinstatement order and restored the original order of dismissal dated 04-04-2017.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached respondent 2, who, vide order dated 26-12-2018, quashed the Revisional Authority’s order dated 12-07-2018, and remanded the matter back with the direction to issue a show cause notice and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
After issuing a show cause notice and considering the representation of the petitioner dated 07-03-2019, respondent 3 passed the impugned order dated 07-03-2019, thereby imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and setting aside the petitioner’s reinstatement.
Moot Point
-
Whether the impugned order dated 07-03-2019 imposing compulsory retirement is legally sustainable in light of the procedural requirements under the CRPF Rules, 1955?
-
Whether Respondent 3 had the authority to exercise suo motu revisionary powers under Section 29(d) of the CRPF Rules?
-
Whether the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and whether proper departmental inquiry procedures were followed?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner alleged that the departmental inquiry was unilateral and ex parte, as no effective notice of the proceedings was served upon him. It was contended that the punishment was grossly disproportionate considering the nature of the offence under Section 10 of the CRPF Act pertaining to less heinous offences. It was argued that respondent 3 did not follow the mandatory procedures under CRPF Rules, including issuing a proper show cause notice before enhancing the punishment. It was contended that the lack of service of the charge memo and inquiry documents on the petitioner rendered the entire inquiry null and void in law.
However, the respondents contended that the inquiry had been conducted in accordance with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, and that multiple communications had been sent via registered post to the petitioner’s recorded address. It was contended that the revisional authority had the power under Rule 29(d) to act suo moto, and all procedural safeguards were observed.
Legal Provisions
Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 —
-
Sub-rule (a) allows a member of the Force to prefer a revision petition after rejection of appeal.
-
Sub-rule (d), however, empowers certain authorities, including the Director General and Inspector General, to call for the record of any punishment awarded and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or direct further investigation, and mandates that the delinquent be given an opportunity to show cause before enhancement of punishment.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that it is evident from the record that a departmental inquiry was indeed conducted, though ex parte, due to non-appearance of the petitioner despite issuance of notices.
The Court held “from the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is absolutely clear that the provisions contained in Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules, vest suo moto and independent power upon the authorities mentioned therein to exercise revisional jurisdiction…” The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s argument that sub-rule (d) must be read in light of sub-rules (a), (b), and (c) and clarified that “if the intention of the rule-making authority was to vest revisional powers only on an application by a member of the Force, then there was no need for incorporating sub-rule (d).”
On the question of fair inquiry, the Court rejected the petitioner’s version and noted that all these communications were returned undelivered with the report that the petitioner had left the address. The Court stated that the petitioner had not informed the Department of his new address, nor provided any compelling evidence to justify his failure to communicate. The Court emphasised that
“An employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee in the whole world.”
Regarding the severity of the punishment, the Court observed “the petitioner has served the Force for about 24 years… but failed to inform his employer about his ailment and address.” The Court noted that the petitioner remained absent for 326 days without any permission or communication and had a prior history of misconduct. The Court further noted that the petitioner was previously punished for overstaying his leave on as many as 08 occasions.
The Court relied on Union of India v. K.G. Soni, (2006) 6 SCC 794 and State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak, (2008) 7 SCC 580, and reiterated the principle that interference with punishment is warranted only in rare and exceptional cases.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that —
-
The suo moto exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Rule 29(d) is valid and permissible;
-
The inquiry proceedings are conducted in conformity with Rule 27 and principles of natural justice; and
-
The punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate, especially given the nature of misconduct and previous record of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
[Harish Chander v. Union of India, WP(C ) No. 2799/2019, Decided on 03-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Manik Gupta, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. R.S.Jamwal, CGSC., Counsel for the Respondents
