The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has upheld the decision of compulsory retirement for a CRPF constable who remained absent from duty for an extended period of 326 days without seeking permission or informing his superiors about his new residential address.
The petitioner, serving as a Havaldar in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), went on five days of sanctioned leave starting May 9, 2016. However, he failed to return on time, citing health issues as the reason. During his illness, he shifted from his registered residence in Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh to another locality for medical treatment. Despite this, he did not notify the department of his change in address, nor did he attempt to communicate with them regarding his extended absence.
Read also: Participation in NI Act Case Doesn’t Mean Acceptance of Jurisdiction: J&K High Court Clarifies
“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,” remarked Justice Sanjay Dhar while deciding the case.
Background of the Case
After failing to return from leave, the petitioner was dismissed from service on April 4, 2017, by the Commandant of his battalion. He filed an appeal, following which the appellate authority (Respondent No. 4) reinstated him on February 9, 2018, reducing the penalty to the stoppage of two annual increments.
However, this relief was short-lived. On July 12, 2018, Respondent No. 3 overturned the appellate authority’s decision and restored the original order of dismissal. The petitioner then moved to Respondent No. 2, who found procedural lapses in the process and instructed Respondent No. 3 to reinitiate proper disciplinary proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice and delivering a detailed order.
After completing these formalities and examining the petitioner’s response, Respondent No. 3 decided to impose compulsory retirement instead of dismissal.
Read also: Accused Can’t Be Detained Just Because He Got Bail: J&K High Court’s Strong Stand
The constable challenged this action in court, arguing that:
- The inquiry was conducted ex parte and without giving him a fair opportunity to be heard.
- Notices sent to him were not received due to his relocation during illness.
- The punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
- The revisional authority (Respondent No. 3) could not have acted on its own without a formal revision application.
He also emphasized that he was under medical treatment, which allegedly prevented him from staying in touch with his superiors.
The court did not find merit in the petitioner’s claims and noted that:
"The record clearly indicates that all procedural steps as required under CRPF Rules were followed."
Justice Dhar also underlined that the employer had sent all communications to the petitioner’s last known residential address. The absence of a formal address change on record could not be held against the employer.
Additionally, medical records submitted by the petitioner did not prove that he was under such serious ailments that prevented any form of communication. The court observed that he was treated as an outpatient and was never hospitalized, negating the claim of severe incapacity.
On the issue of revisional jurisdiction, the court referred to Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules:
“Authorities mentioned therein are vested with suo motu powers to revise any punishment, including enhancing it, without requiring a formal revision application.”
Dismissing the petition, the court emphasized the disciplinary authority’s discretion in choosing an appropriate punishment.
“In cases of proven misconduct, it is the prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority to decide the nature of punishment, and courts must refrain from interfering unless there is a clear violation of law,” said the court, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Meghalaya vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak.
In conclusion, the court found no procedural lapse or miscarriage of justice. The constable’s failure to return after 326 days, his silence during the extended absence, and his lack of communication justified the disciplinary action. The employer had acted within the framework of law and internal rules.
APPEARANCE:
Manik Gupta, Advocate For Petitioner
R.S.Jamwal CGSC. For Respondents
Case-Title: HC/GD Harish Chander vs UOI and others, 2025
