High Court · 2025

1. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his dismissal from employment of CRPF. The ground of dismissal is his unauthorized absence from service for 409 days.

2. Learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant is a Constable in CRPF and he was sent on deputation to Delhi Police on 29.9.2001. He was relieved from Delhi Police on 21.7.2004. Thirty days' leave was also sanctioned to the appellant. However, the appellant did not report for duty and only after unauthorized absence of 409 days he reported at the place of his posting.

3. The appellant contended before the authorities that he has lost his brother, as a result of which he was in state of shock and suffering from physical and mental trauma, therefore, he could not participate in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. A plea was also set up that appellant was mentally disturbed.

4. The enquiry proceedings are not on record. The reply of the appellant to the chargesheet, however, is on record of the appeal at page 65-A, as per which the appellant took the dead body of his brother to his village at District Etawah on 8.7.2004. His leave was also sanctioned for 30 days. Thereafter the appellant was not in a position to comprehend the situation and he was not in a position to even move. He has further stated that his family members kept informing the authorities about his illness. The appellant has also stated that he had deposited the articles availed from Delhi Police in the concerned store at Delhi on 22.8.2005. He has also stated that he was not aware that he has been relieved from Delhi Police.

5. Admittedly during the course of disciplinary enquiry, the appellant did not participate nor had cross-examined any of the witnesses despite due opportunity. It is thereafter that the order of dismissal from service has been passed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2012 (1) ESC 133, in order to submit that disciplinary authority is required to prove that absence from service was willful. In its absence, there would no misconduct and consequently, no order of termination could be passed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant.

8. In the facts of the case, we find that the appellant was on deputation with Delhi Police and was repatriated in the month of July, 2004. Though he was initially granted 30 days' leave but even after such leave expired he did not join. Even the articles issued by Delhi Police have been returned after a year. During the course of enquiry the charged employee has not substantiated his illness etc.

9. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition after holding that the unauthorized absence has not been explained by the appellant and since he is otherwise a member of disciplined force, therefore, such long absence from work cannot be condoned. The observations made by learned Single Judge reads as under:- "6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the charges framed against the petitioner were replied to by him on the aforesaid lines and when he was provided necessary documents and was also provided opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had deposed against him, he did not avail the said opportunity.

7. The alleged medical prescriptions/certificates appended to the writ petition and said to form part of the record of inquiry and allegedly not having been taken into consideration do not persuade this Court to set aside the orders impugned as even the said alleged evidence does not cover up the entire period of absence. Even otherwise, the opinion formed by the doctor varied from one document to other and is also contradictory to the pleadings contained in the writ petition.

10. C.R.P.F. being a disciplined police force, the persons in service on any post are supposed to obey the discipline with utmost care and caution.

11. The decisions for awarding punishment of dismissal from service do not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity.

12. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed."

10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any justifiable material to have been placed by the appellant before the disciplinary authority in respect of his unauthorized to him. absence from duty for a period of 409 days. Except for certain medical prescriptions, there is nothing on record to show that either the appellant informed the authorities of his illness or made any prayer for getting himself examined by the Medical Board. The certificate annexed alongwith appeal at pages 179 and 180 merely shows that the appellant was suffering from hyper tension and cardiac neurosis. He was advised rest till 4.8.2004. Certain medicines were also prescribed Similar certificates/prescriptions for subsequent periods are also annexed. The appellant, however, did not participate in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. None of the records show that the appellant was ever hospitalized or that he was not in a position to either report for work or even inform the authorities about his illness. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment on the appellant is excessive also does not appeal to us, inasmuch as the unauthorized absence from duty in a police force for more 400 days would justify an order of dismissal to be passed against him. Considering the fact that appellant is a member of the disciplined force, his absence from duty of 409 days cannot be condoned in a routine manner. The view taken by learned Single Judge is thus a clearly permissible view on the facts of the case.

11. Special appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Anil ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his dismissal from employment of CRPF. The ground of dismissal is his unauthorized absence from service for 409 days.

2. Learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant is a Constable in CRPF and he was sent on deputation to Delhi Police on 29.9.2001. He was relieved from Delhi Police on 21.7.2004. Thirty days' leave was also sanctioned to the appellant. However, the appellant did not report for duty and only after unauthorized absence of 409 days he reported at the place of his posting.

3. The appellant contended before the authorities that he has lost his brother, as a result of which he was in state of shock and suffering from physical and mental trauma, therefore, he could not participate in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. A plea was also set up that appellant was mentally disturbed.

4. The enquiry proceedings are not on record. The reply of the appellant to the chargesheet, however, is on record of the appeal at page 65-A, as per which the appellant took the dead body of his brother to his village at District Etawah on 8.7.2004. His leave was also sanctioned for 30 days. Thereafter the appellant was not in a position to comprehend the situation and he was not in a position to even move. He has further stated that his family members kept informing the authorities about his illness. The appellant has also stated that he had deposited the articles availed from Delhi Police in the concerned store at Delhi on 22.8.2005. He has also stated that he was not aware that he has been relieved from Delhi Police.

5. Admittedly during the course of disciplinary enquiry, the appellant did not participate nor had cross-examined any of the witnesses despite due opportunity. It is thereafter that the order of dismissal from service has been passed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2012 (1) ESC 133, in order to submit that disciplinary authority is required to prove that absence from service was willful. In its absence, there would no misconduct and consequently, no order of termination could be passed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant.

8. In the facts of the case, we find that the appellant was on deputation with Delhi Police and was repatriated in the month of July, 2004. Though he was initially granted 30 days' leave but even after such leave expired he did not join. Even the articles issued by Delhi Police have been returned after a year. During the course of enquiry the charged employee has not substantiated his illness etc.

9. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition after holding that the unauthorized absence has not been explained by the appellant and since he is otherwise a member of disciplined force, therefore, such long absence from work cannot be condoned. The observations made by learned Single Judge reads as under:- "6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the charges framed against the petitioner were replied to by him on the aforesaid lines and when he was provided necessary documents and was also provided opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had deposed against him, he did not avail the said opportunity.

7. The alleged medical prescriptions/certificates appended to the writ petition and said to form part of the record of inquiry and allegedly not having been taken into consideration do not persuade this Court to set aside the orders impugned as even the said alleged evidence does not cover up the entire period of absence. Even otherwise, the opinion formed by the doctor varied from one document to other and is also contradictory to the pleadings contained in the writ petition.

10. C.R.P.F. being a disciplined police force, the persons in service on any post are supposed to obey the discipline with utmost care and caution.

11. The decisions for awarding punishment of dismissal from service do not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity.

12. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed."

10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any justifiable material to have been placed by the appellant before the disciplinary authority in respect of his unauthorized to him. absence from duty for a period of 409 days. Except for certain medical prescriptions, there is nothing on record to show that either the appellant informed the authorities of his illness or made any prayer for getting himself examined by the Medical Board. The certificate annexed alongwith appeal at pages 179 and 180 merely shows that the appellant was suffering from hyper tension and cardiac neurosis. He was advised rest till 4.8.2004. Certain medicines were also prescribed Similar certificates/prescriptions for subsequent periods are also annexed. The appellant, however, did not participate in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. None of the records show that the appellant was ever hospitalized or that he was not in a position to either report for work or even inform the authorities about his illness. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment on the appellant is excessive also does not appeal to us, inasmuch as the unauthorized absence from duty in a police force for more 400 days would justify an order of dismissal to be passed against him. Considering the fact that appellant is a member of the disciplined force, his absence from duty of 409 days cannot be condoned in a routine manner. The view taken by learned Single Judge is thus a clearly permissible view on the facts of the case.

11. Special appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Anil ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad