ANIL KUMAR MANDAL vs THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18929 of 2008
======================================================
ANIL KUMAR MANDAL, Son of Shri Chandradeep Mandal, resident of
Village- Khiradih, P.S.- Parbatta, District- Khagaria (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.), C.G.O.
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General (Prov & Comm.), Central Reserve Police Force
(C.R.P.F.), C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General (Communication), Central Reserve
Police Force (C.R.P.F.), C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
5. The Commandant, 3 Signal Batalion, Central Reserve Police Force,
Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata (W.B.).
rd
6. The Officer Commanding, C/3 Signal, En. Central Reserve Police
Force, Rukunpura, Patna (Bihar).
7. The Commandant, (Staff Officer) to D.I.G.P. Central Reserve Police
Force, Rukunpura, Patna (Bihar).
8. The Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Rukunpura,
Patna.
9. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force,
Rukunpura, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate
: Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 27-10-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the order dated 25.02.2002 passed by the respondent no.5 as
contained in Annexure-14 whereby and whereunder the petitioner
was dismissed from service in exercise of the power conferred to
him u/s-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 read with table Rule 27(a) of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
2/28
CRPF Rules, 1955 and further for setting aside the order dated
27.06.2007/08.07.2007 passed by the respondent no.4 by which
the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal
has been rejected and further for quashing the order dated
20.09.2007 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby and
whereunder the revision application filed by the petitioner has
been rejected and/or issuance of consequential writ or writs for
reinstatement of the petitioner on its original post.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The brief facts, which are necessary for adjudication
of the present writ petition, are that the petitioner, at the relevant
time was working on the post of Head Constable and was posted at
rd
C/3 Signal Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Rukunpura, Patna. He was not fully fit, since he was suffering
from various ailments, for which he was being treated by approved
doctors of the respondents. Vide letter dated 12.08.2001, issued
under the signature of the Commanding Officer, C/3 Signal Bn.
CRPF, the petitioner was directed to submit all the relevant
documents, along with the medical reports in original to process
his case for regularization of his leave, for being not on duty on
account of his illness. In compliance thereof, the petitioner
submitted a letter on the same date i.e. on 12.08.2001, wherein he

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
3/28
informed that he is still under treatment and has to be rechecked by
the attending doctor,therefore, it would not be possible for him to
submit the original documents at this stage. He also informed that
the doctor has declared him fit to resume duty by granting him
Attend-B for 8 weeks w.e.f. 08.08.2001. He further informed that
since he is to be rechecked, therefore, it is necessary to keep all the
medical documents with him in original and he has already
submitted the photocopies of all the medical documents from time
to time.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of him
being declared Attend-B, vide office order dated 13.08.2001, he
was directed to seek clearance and to obtain movement order and
th
railway warrant, on account of his transfer to 8 Signal Platoon at
Doda (Jammu & Kashmir). The petitioner immediately vide his
letter dated 14.08.2001, informed that he has been classified as
Attend-B for 8 weeks w.e.f. 08.08.2001 and the long and strenuous
journey to Doda with full luggage would amount to physical
exertion and would be violative of Attend-B. He further requested
for being relieved only w.e.f. 02.10.2001, i.e. after expiry of
Attend-B period. Immediately thereafter, vide letter dated
14.08.2001, issued under the signature of the Commanding
rd
Officer, C/3 Signal Battalion, C.R.P.F., the petitioner was

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
4/28
informed that despite his relieving on 13.08.2001, he has not
produced any clearance certificate for issuance of necessary
movement orders and the railway warrant. It was further informed
that he was found absent from morning parade, without any
information, which is against the discipline of the force and he was
asked to submit his written statement before 15:30 hours on the
said date.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that he submitted his
written explanation on 14.08.2001 itself, wherein he stated that he
was under treatment, during the relevant period and as such, he
could not attend the morning parade. He also informed that he
reported for duties at 07:35 hours in the morning. Being
dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, vide letter
dated 14.08.2001, issued under the signature of the Commanding
Officer, the petitioner was informed that in the application, he had
stated that he was at Subham Nursing Home from 05:30 hours in
the morning, whereas from the prescription, which has been
attached by him, it would transpire that he was at Subham Nursing
Home from 08:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The petitioner was cautioned
to be more careful in future, otherwise disciplinary action will be
initiated against him. The petitioner vide his letter dated
16.08.2001, addressed to the Commanding Officer, informed that

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
5/28
he reached the Nursing Home at 05:30 in the morning, after that he
was given first aid by compounder and on arrival of the doctor, he
was given proper treatment. He stated that he was at the Nursing
Home from 05:30 to 07:25 hours in the morning.It is further case
of the petitioner that on 17.08.2001, he submitted a
rd
representationbefore the Commandant 3 Signal Battalion, CRPF,
Salt Lake, Kolkata through proper channel, with a request to him
to sympathetically consider his request for stay of transfer, till he
gets cured, but his case was not considered and the impugned
order of punishment was passed thereafter.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on
account of the conduct of the respondent authorities, the petitioner
suffered mental trauma and therefore he was taken to the
Government Hospital, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna (CRPF Hospital) on
21.08.2001, from where the he was referred to the Patna Medical
College and Hospital, Patna for his mental treatment. The
petitioner was under active treatment at PMCH, Patna from
22.08.2001 and during course of treatment, it was found that he
was suffering from Hepatitis, for whichhe was given a certificate
on 20.10.2001 by the doctor, that he was under treatment from
23.04.2001 to 20.10.2001. When the mental condition of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
6/28
petitioner did not improve, then the petitioner was under treatment
of a psychiatrist w.e.f. 17.05.2002 to 18.04.2004 and ultimately, he
was given the fitness certificate by the treating doctor on
18.04.2004. After his recovery, the petitioner approached before
the respondent authorities and prayed for his joining to be
accepted, but the respondents refused to accept the same and even
refused to inform the superior authorities. The petitioner was
informed that he is no longer in service and when he requested for
supply of relevant documents with regard to alleged dismissal
rd
from service, the Commanding Officer of the 3 Signal Battalion,
did not supply any order/document whatsoever. The petitioner
filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.7236 of 2004 before this
Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of by an Hon’ble Single Judge
of this Court vide order dated 21.07.2004, with a direction to the
petitioners for making an application to the respondents along with
rd
copy of the order to the Officer Commanding, C/3 Signal
Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Rukunpura, Patna, who
shall supply all the documents to the petitioner, which relates to
the dismissal or discharge from service, within two months. In
terms of the directions given by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C.
No.7236 of 2004, the petitioner was supplied all the documents on
20.09.2004, including the order of dismissal dated 25.02.2002

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
7/28
rd
passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant, 3
Signal Battalion, CRPF, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata. The
petitioner immediately thereafter preferred a writ petition bearing
C.W.J.C. No.2814 of 2005 before this Hon’ble Court, whereby he
assailed the order of dismissal dated 25.02.2002. The writ petition
was heard by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court and vide order
dated 07.11.2006, the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to permit
the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file an
appeal or revision, in accordance with law. In terms of the
directions/liberty given by this Hon’ble Court on 07.11.2006, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e.
the Deputy Inspector General (Communication), CRPF, New
Delhi. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide
order dated 27.06.2007/08.07.2007, without considering the
grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. The
appellate order was served upon the petitioner on 08.07.2007.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.06.2007/08.07.2007, the
petitioner preferred revision before the Inspector General (Prov &
Comm.), CRPF, New Delhi, however the same was also rejected
vide order dated 20.09.2007, without assigning any reason and
without applying his judicial mind.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
8/28
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
despite the fact that the petitioner was under treatment at Patna and
Ranchi, the same was not taken into consideration by the
respondent authorities, while passing the impugned order of
dismissal from service. He submits that there were two charges
against the petitioner. The charge no.1 was with regard to him,
having committed an act of disobedience in his capacity as a
member of the force, which is punishable under Section 11(1) of
the C.R.P.F. Act 1949, by which he denied receiving the movement
order and the railway warrant for his joining at Doda (Jammu and
Kashmir), which is prejudicial to the good order and the discipline
of the force. He submits that the charge no.2 was related with the
petitioner having committed an act of misconduct, as he continued
to remain absent from duties w.e.f. 21.08.2001, without sanction of
leave from the competent authority. He submits that the impugned
order of dismissal was passed only on article/charge no.1. From
perusal of the impugned order of dismissal itself, it would
transpire that the enquiry was held ex-parte and it would further
transpire that the situation was well beyond the control of the
petitioner. He was not even aware about any departmental
proceeding pending against him, therefore, the order passed by the
respondent authorities is perverse and the same has been passed in

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
9/28
complete violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits
that the relevant records, related to the ailments of the petitioner,
were not considered, specifically the documents/prescription, by
which the petitioner was declared as Attend-B by the doctor, which
was relevant for consideration, seeking review of the order,
however the same was not considered. He submits that the only
question, which is relevant for consideration before this Hon’ble
Court is that whether during the period of Attend-B, the petitioner
can be forced to undergo a long and strenuous journey with full kit
to Jammu & Kashmir or not.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that the appellate authority failed to consider that the departmental
enquiry was conducted ex-parte. If the enquiry officer had
conducted the enquiry fairly, then he ought to have examined the
Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Rajbanshi Nagar, to
verify that whether the petitioner was granted Attend-B or not and
whether he was in a position to travel to such a far place at Jammu
& Kashmir or not. He submits that the appellate authority failed to
consider that the order passed by the disciplinary authority was on
article/charge no.1 and therefore, the petitioner did not prefer any
appeal against charge no.2. He submits that the respondent

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
10/28
authorities, without any valid ground, have terminated the services
of the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that although the petitioner was transferred to Doda
(Jammu & Kashmir) vide office order dated 24.02.2001, with a
direction to relieve him after receipt of pay for April 2001,
however prior to one week of his relieving, he reported sick on
23.04.2001 and the Medical Officer, Government Hospital,
Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna advised him rest for total 107 days. On
08.08.2001, the Medical Officer declared the petitioner fit to
resume his duties with light work for 8 weeks and the sick report
register shows him as Attend-B. The petitioner was under
treatment for Hepatitis from 23.04.2001 to 07.08.2001, therefore,
he did not join at his transferred place of posting. He submits that
the memorandum of charge with its annexure dated 08.09.2021
were sent through registered post at his declared address, but the
same was received much later, on finalization of departmental
enquiry ex.-parte,was returned undelivered. By the impugned
order of punishment dated 25.02.2002, the entire
suspension/absence period from 20.08.2001 to 25.02.2002 has
been regularized as dies non and the entire Attend-C/Medical rest
from 23.04.2001 to 07.08.2001 has been regularized towards

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
11/28
earned leave. He further submits that so far, the disobedience of
orders is concerned, the petitioner did not receive the movement
rd
orders and railway warrant from Officer Commanding of the 3
Signal Battalion, for his movement and posting at Doda (Jammu &
Kashmir) and the petitioner was declared deserter from force w.e.f.
21.08.2001, after Court of enquiry.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits
that upon wrong advice, the petitioner filed a writ petition before
this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of with a direction to file
a representation to obtain relevant documents. After receiving the
documents, the petitioner again filed a writ petition, however he
was directed to file an appeal or revision before the competent
authority. After exhausting all the alternative remedy, the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition and has never disobeyed any
orders passed by the superior authority, however on account of
medical exigency, the petitioner could not join his duties, which
was never considered by the respondent authorities.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Union of India
submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on
01.04.1988 and was posted in 91 Battalion, CRPF. He gave his
joining as a constable (General Duty). On remustering as Naik

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
12/28
(Radio Operator), he was relieved on transfer from 91 Bn., CRPF
st
to 1 Signal Battalion, CRPF on 07.01.1991. Thereafter, he was
st rd
transferred from 1 Signal Bn. to 3 Signal Battalion, CRPF on
04.03.1998. He remained posted in the said Battalion w.e.f.
rd
22.08.1998 and since he had completed a tenure of two years at 3
th
Signal Battalion, he was posted to the Signal Platoon of 8
Battalion, CRPF, Doda (Jammu & Kashmir), vide order dated
24.02.2001, with a direction to relieve him after receipt of pay for
the month of April 2001. He reported sick on 23.04.2001 and the
Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna
advised him Attend-C/Home Rest for total 107 days. On
08.08.2001, the Medical Officer declared the petitioner fit to
resume his duties with light works for 8 weeks and the sick report
register was marked as Attend-B for 8 weeks. Since Attend-B
means fit for duty, on 13.08.2001 he was relived for signal center
duties at C/3 Signal Battalion, CRPF, with a direction to get his
clearance done and to collect movement order and railway
warrant, to proceed for Doda, however he disobeyed the orders on
the plea that he has been advised Attend-B and will not go to his
new place of posting till completion of Attend-B period. He also
did not attend the morning marker parade on 14.08.2001,
therefore, he was placed under suspension vide order dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
13/28
rd
20.08.2001, passed by the Commandant, 3 Signal Battalion,
CRPF w.e.f. 20.08.2001. The petitioner was living in a rented
premises at Patna. On 21.08.2001 at 08:00 hours, the petitioner
was permitted by the Coy 201/C for medical checkup of his
daughter from a local doctor for a short time, however he did not
return back and also did not attend roll call on 21.08.2001 and
remained absent since then. When the Coy personnel of C/3 Signal
Battalion, CRPF, were sent to find out the whereabout of the
petitioner, then it came to the notice that the petitioner and his
family has vacated the rented house on 21.08.2001 in the forenoon
itself. A court of enquiry was held, whereby the petitioner was
declared deserter vide office order dated 22.01.2002. A
departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide
issuance of memo of charge dated 08.09.2001. The same was sent
through registered post at his declared address, but the same was
received undelivered and on finalization of the departmental
enquiry, which was conducted ex-parte, the penalty of dismissal
from service w.e.f. 25.02.2010 was awarded. The entire
suspension/absence period from 20.08.2001 to 25.02.2002 has
been regularized as dies-non and entire Attend-C/Medical Rest
period from 23.04.2001 to 07.08.2001 has been regularized
towards earned leave. In terms of the directions given by this

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
14/28
Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.7236 of 2004, the petitioner was
supplied all the relevant documents on 20.09.2004. The petitioner
again filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.2814 of 2005,
however the same was disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2006,
with a liberty to him to file an appeal or revision. The appeal
preferred by the petitioner on 14.11.2006 was considered and after
due consideration, the appellate authority rejected the same vide
order dated 27.06.2007. The petitioner preferred revision before
the competent authority, however the same was also rejected vide
office order dated 20.09.2007.
12. The learned counsel for the Union of India submits
that when the petitioner was declared fit to resume his duties w.e.f.
08.08.2001 with Attend-B for 8 weeks, it was incumbent upon him
to give his joining at Doda, which admittedly he did not give. He
submits that the period under Attend-C was regularizedtowards
earned leave vide office order dated 04.03.2002, however the
Attend-B period from 08.08.2001 was not regularizedtowards
leave and it was termed as on duty, as per para-62(B) of Section-
IV of CRPF Medical Manual, 1998. He submits that Attend-B
means fit for duty. He submits that exertion means ‘bringing into
active operation’, therefore, performing journey by train from
Patna to Doda does not involve any physical exertion and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
15/28
petitioner disobeyed the directions given by his superior
authorities and did not proceed for Doda. He submits that an
explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 14.08.2001, which
was found to be false, since the petitioner produced a xerox copy
of prescription of Dr. Bipin Kumar Singh and not of Subham
Nursing Home, where the petitioner reportedly undergone
treatment, in which the date was also overwritten as 14.08.2001
and attending time was given as 07:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and
05:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
13. The learned counsel for the Union of India submits
that the notices were sent at the residential/permanent address of
the petitioner, but the same was returned unserved, therefore there
was no other option available for the respondent authorities to
inform the petitioner. He submits that neither the petitioner nor his
family members ever informed the authorities with regard to
treatment of the petitioner in Patna Medical College and Hospital
w.e.f. 21.08.2001 and the same was done after 7 years, during the
present proceeding. He submits that the documents, letters, orders
and memo of charge were sent at his permanent address, however
the same were returned undelivered, therefore there is no question
of any laches on the part of the respondent authorities in
conducting the departmental proceeding. He submits that although

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
16/28
2 charges were framed against the petitioner, however the
rd
respondent no.5 i.e. the Commandant, 3 Signal Battalion, CRPF,
Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata, in his capacity as the disciplinary
authority took cognizance of charge framed under Article-I only.
Although both the charges were found to be proved during course
of enquiry, therefore the order of dismissal from service passed on
the charge framed under Article-I only, is in order.
14. The learned counsel for the Union of India finally
submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is thoroughly
misconceived, since he was found absent from his duties on
account of false medical pretext and despite best effort by the
respondent authorities to make communication to him at his
permanent address, the same were returned undelivered and left
with no other option, the respondent authorities proceeded to pass
an ex-party order, therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders
passed by the respondent authorities, against the petitioner.
CONSIDERATION/CONCLUSION
15. Having perused the materials on record, it appears
that when the matter was called out on 30.03.2026 none appeared
on behalf of the petitioner, however, the learned counsel for the
Union of India was present. In the interest of justice, the matter
was directed to be listed on 06.04.2026. When the matter was

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
17/28
heard on 06.04.2026, a request was made on behalf of the learned
counsel for the petitioner for adjournment for two weeks, on
account of bereavement in the family. Accordingly, the matter was
directed to be listed on 27.04.2026. When the matter was called
out on 27.04.2026, Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate appeared and
informed this court that the petitioner has obtained no objection
from him, therefore he is unable to assist this court in the present
matter. The matter was directed to be listed on 15.06.2026. On
15.06.2026, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, however the
learned counsel for the Union of India was present. Since, the
matter related to dismissal from service of the petitioner and the
learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of the petitioner had
already given his no objection, therefore this court directed the
registry of this Hon’ble Court to issue notice to the petitioner,
through both modes i.e. through registered cover as well as
through ordinary process. The matter was directed to be listed after
receipt of service report or after appearance of the petitioner. The
matter was again listed on 11.08.2026 and on the said date Shri
Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate appeared and informed this court
that he has filed a fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner
and he prayed for some time to assist this court in the matter. On
his request the matter was directed to be listed on 17.08.2026.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
18/28
When the matter was called out on 17.08.2026, Shri Anil Kumar
Mishra, Advocate appeared and advanced his argument. He was
unable to answer the queries made by this court and when this
court asked from him that on what grounds the impugned orders
are illegal and perverse, he was unable to assist this court. On his
request the judgement was reserved.
16. It appears from the record that at the relevant time
the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable and was
rd
posted at 3 Signal Battalion, C.R.P.F., Patna. Since he completed
the tenure of two years, he was transferred vide order dated
th
24.02.2001, to the 8 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Doda, Jammu & Kashmir,
with a direction to relieve him after receipt of salary for the month
of April 2001, however, he reported sick on 23.04.2001. He was
advised Attend-C/home rest for total 107 days by the medical
officer/treating doctor. On 8.08.2001, he was declared fit to resume
his duties with light work for 8 weeks and he was issued/marked
as Attend-B, which means fit for duty. On 13.08.2001 he was
rd
relieved from 3 Signal Battalion and was directed to get his
clearance done and to collect movement order and railway
warrant, to proceed for his new place of posting, however he did
not obey the orders of the superior authorities, on the ground that
he will only proceed to his new place of posting after completion

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
19/28
of Attend-B. Since he was not attending to his duties, a special
messenger was sent to his Patna residence, however, he came to
know that the petitioner and his family has vacated the rented
premises at Patna on 21.08.2001 in the forenoon itself. Despite
best effort by the respondent authorities, his whereabout could not
be known. A court of enquiry was held, in which the petitioner was
declared a Deserter vide office order dated 22.01.2002. Pursuant
thereto a departmental enquiry was initiated against him with
issuance of memo of charge on 08.09.2001. The memo of charge
was sent through registered post at his declared addressed,
however the same was returned undelivered and left with no other
option the departmental enquiry was conducted ex-parte. The
enquiry officer submitted his report. On the basis of the
departmental enquiry report, the disciplinary authority by the
impugned order dated 25.02.2002 proceeded to dismiss him from
service. The petitioner, all of a sudden appeared before the
respondent no.6 on 26.04.2004 and requested him to accept his
joining, however the same was not done. He was informed with
regard to his dismissal from service. The petitioner filed a writ
petition before this Hon’ble court, which was numbered as CWJC
No.7236 of 2004, for a direction upon the respondents to provide
him the order of dismissal as well as the relevant documents. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
20/28
writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by an Hon’ble
Single Judge of this court vide order dated 21.07.2004. In
compliance of the order dated 21.07.2004 the petitioner was
provided with all the documents related to the departmental
proceeding, including the order of dismissal. The petitioner again
filed a writ petition, whereby he assailed the order of dismissal
dated 25.02.2002. The writ petition was numbered as CWJC
No.814 of 2005. The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn
vide order dated 07.11.2006 passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge of
this court with the liberty to the petitioner to move in appeal or
revision, as the remedy may be available to him in law. Pursuant to
the order dated 07.11.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the competent authority, however the appeal was rejected
by a very detailed order on 27.06.2007/08.07.2007, passed by the
appellate authority. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the
appellate authority the petitioner preferred revision before the
competent authority, however the same was also
rejected/dismissed by order dated 20.09.2007 and thereafter the
present writ petition was filed. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner was relieved on 13.08.2001, however he did not go to
his transferred place of posting and he went missing since
21.08.2001. Despite best effort made by the respondents to

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
21/28
communicate him with regard to the initiation of the departmental
proceeding, the same was not delivered at his declared address,
therefore, the departmental proceeding was conducted ex-parte.
From the records it appears that although in the order passed by
the disciplinary authority dated 25.02.2002, there is a reference of
the report of the enquiry officer, however, the same is not on
record. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position
to inform this court about the same, therefore in absence of the
enquiry report, this court cannot go into the illegality and
perversity of the enquiry officer, in conducting the departmental
enquiry and has to accept the finding recorded by the disciplinary
officer, the appellate authority and the Revisional authority. From
the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
remained absent from his duties, unauthorizedly w.e.f. 21.08.2001.
He disobeyed the directions issued by his superior authorities. The
petitioner being a member of the disciplined force was required to
maintain discipline, which admittedly, as it appears from the
record, he failed maintain.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case
reported in AIR 2025 SC 4011 (State of Punjab VS. Ex. C. Satpal
Singh) , in paragraph nos. 31 and 33 has held as under:-
“31. In light of the judicial precedents cited
above, when the factual matrix of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
22/28
present case is appreciated, it is seen that
the reference to the fact of forfeiture of 17
years of service of the respondent as a
result of his absence from service on
previous occasions was in exclusion or
independent of the misconduct for which
the enquiry officer has found him guilty.
The consideration of the past misconduct
of the respondent was not the effective
reason for dismissing him from the
service. The disciplinary authority had
mentioned the past misconduct of the
respondent only for adding the weight to
the decision of imposing the punishment.
33. In the facts of the present case, it is clear
that the respondent was dealt by the
department earlier on three occasions
having remained absent from duty and the
penalties were inflicted for the same. It is
the fourth time when he remained absent
to which, a chargesheet was issued and
his guilt was found proved. He himself
had not cross-examined the departmental
witnesses and also had not produced any
witness in his defense. Considering all
these aspects and having found proved his
misconduct, notice to show cause from
dismissal was issued to the respondent.
The disciplinary authority, while
imposing the penalty, had merely referred
the past conduct and also given weight to
the gravest act of misconduct. The order
of dismissal is not based on the charge of

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
23/28
“cumulative effect of continued
misconduct proving incorrigibility and
complete unfitness for police service”.
Therefore, mere reference of the past
conduct would not amount to constitute
dismissal of the respondent based on the
second limb of Rule 16.2(1). In our view,
the High Court was not justified to apply
the principle of K. Manche Gowda
(supra) while setting aside the judgment
passed by the two Courts. As such, it is
concluded that the dismissal of the
respondent was based on gravest act of
misconduct, for which he was dealt with
by the disciplinary authority following the
procedure as prescribed and in due
observance of principles of natural justice,
hence, we do not find any fault in the
same. Accordingly, the present appeal
stands allowed setting aside the judgment
of the High Court. In consequence, suit
filed by the respondent/plaintiff stands
dismissed. In the facts, parties to bear
their own costs.”
18. So far, the question of conducting the departmental
enquiry/proceeding ex-parte is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8075 of 2026 (M/S Rifilis
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. VS. Arjun Gupta) in paragraph no.8 to 11 it
has been held as follow:
“8. At the outset, we note the finding of the
High Court that the registered notice

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
24/28
dated 18th May 2012 was dispatched to
the respondent-employee’s permanent
address in Bihar, whereas he was residing
at a different address in Gautam Budh
Nagar at the time. While this fact has
been pressed to fault the employer, we are
unable to accept that the appellant-
company can be held responsible for this.
The notice was sent to the only address
available in the employer’s records,
which was the address furnished by the
respondent-employee himself at the time
of his appointment. An employer can only
be expected to communicate with an
employee at the address the employee has
provided. If the respondent-employee had
changed his place of residence, the
obligation to inform his employer of the
change rested on him. He cannot be
permitted to take advantage of his own
omission in this regard.
9. The respondent-employee claims that his
absence was due to his mother's serious
illness and that he had verbally informed
his superior before leaving. This claim is

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
25/28
entirely unsubstantiated. No documentary
evidence has been placed on record in
support of it. More significantly, during
the period of absence, the respondent-
employee did not send a single written
communication to his employer
explaining the reasons for his absence or
seeking leave. Had his explanation been
genuine, he could have sent a letter or
other written intimation. Having failed to
do so, he cannot now rely solely on an
oral assertion to justify his unauthorised
absence.
10. The respondent-employee further claims
that he returned on 8th June 2012 and
attempted to rejoin duty but was not
permitted to do so. This claim too is
unsupported by any documentary
evidence.
11. We find that the respondent-employee
absented himself without authorisation,
failed to send any written communication
to his employer during his absence, has
led no documentary evidence to explain
his absence, and has produced no

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
26/28
evidence of any attempt to rejoin duty.
Therefore, the Labour Court and the High
Court erred in granting relief in the
absence of such evidence. The writ
petition of the appellant was liable to be
allowed.”
19. From the consideration made above this Court is of
the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to
reinstatement in service merely on the ground that the
departmental proceedings were conducted ex-parte. The petitioner,
being a constable in the C.R.P.F., was a member of a disciplined
force and was under an obligation to maintain discipline and
remain available for the discharge of his official duties. His
unauthorized absence from duty, without any satisfactory
explanation, constitutes serious misconduct, warranting
disciplinary action. The fact that the petitioner failed to appear in
the departmental proceedings despite communications having been
sent to his home address cannot, by itself, be a ground to invalidate
the proceedings, since prescribed procedure was followed and a
reasonable opportunity to participate was afforded to him.
20. In the case of State of Punjab (Supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court emphasized that unauthorized absence by a
member of a disciplined force constitutes gross indiscipline and

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
27/28
upheld the dismissal of the employee, where the charge of
misconduct had been established in accordance with the applicable
procedure and the principles of natural justice. The judgment
reinforces the principle that an employee cannot avoid the
consequences of proved misconduct, merely by failing to
participate in the disciplinary proceedings, despite being afforded
an opportunity to do so.
21. Similarly, in M/S Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employer could
reasonably be expected to communicate with an employee at the
address furnished by the employee and available in the employer’s
records. Where an employee fails to inform the employer of a
change in address, the employee cannot ordinarily take advantage
of that omission to contend that the communication was not served
upon him. The Court also emphasized the significance of the
employee’s failure to substantiate the reasons for unauthorized
absence. Applying this principle to the present case, where
communications concerning the departmental proceedings were
sent to the petitioner’s home address and he nevertheless failed to
appear, his non-participation cannot, in the absence of any
demonstrated procedural irregularity, be treated as sufficient
justification for setting aside the disciplinary action.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18929 of 2008 dt. 27-10-2026
28/28
22. Accordingly, this Court finds no sufficient ground,
on the facts stated, to interfere with the order of dismissal. The
writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
23. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 17.08.2026
Uploading Date 27.10.2026
Transmission Date NA