RAHUL SOPANRAO HINGANKAR vs UNION OF INDIA

1

CGHC010239402023 2026:CGHC:39424
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5158 of 2023
The date which the
The date when order is
The date when the order is
case is reserved for
pronounced
uploaded
order
18-8-2026 9-9-2026 Operative Full- 9-9-2026
Rahul Sopanrao Hingankar S/o Shri Shri Sopan Rao Hingankar Aged About 34
Years R/o Darapur, Tehsil Daryapur, District : Amravati, Maharashtra
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, North Block,
New Delhi.
2 - Inspector General Of Police Central Reserve Police Force, Pune Range, Tale­
gaon, Pune, Maharashtra.
3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police Central Reserve Police Force, Pune Range,
Talegaon, Pune, Maharashtra.
4 - The Commandant 219 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Ingiram Sukma,
District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Adv.
For Respondents : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Govt. Counsel

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 23-
6-2018, vide Annexure P-3, whereby he has been removed from
service. He has also challenged the order dated 14-2-2019, vide
Annexure P-2, whereby his appeal was rejected, as well as the
order dated 5-8-2019, vide Annexure P-1, whereby his revision
was rejected.
2.
Facts of the case, in brief, as projected in the writ petition are that,
the petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 25-3-2009 to
the post of Constable. Since the petitioner had completed more
than eight years of service, he attained the status of permanency
in service. On medical grounds, the petitioner was granted leave
for the period from 13-2-2017 to 14-3-2017. After expiry of the
period of leave, as his condition did not improve, the petitioner
applied for extension of leave for another six months. In support of
his application, he submitted copies of medical prescriptions and
other relevant documents, including a medical certificate. The said
request was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide communication
(Annexure P-4) dated 1-4-2017, whereby the petitioner was
directed to report for duty forthwith, failing which disciplinary action
would be taken against him. After receiving the said
communication, the petitioner reported for duty on 7-6-2017;

3
however, respondent No. 3 did not permit him to join. It is pleaded
that the petitioner remained under medical treatment till 6-6-2017,
as reflected from Annexure P-5. For these reasons, he could not
participate in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings initiated against
him and, ultimately, respondent No. 4, vide order dated 23-6-2018
(Annexure P-3), removed him from service. Against the order of
removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure
P-8) before respondent No. 3/Commandant, 219 Batallian, CRPF,
Sukma; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 14-2-
2019 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a
revision (Annexure P-9) before respondent No. 2/Inspector
General of Police, CRPF, Pune Range, Pune, which was
dismissed vide order dated 5-8-2019 (Annexure P-1).
3. The petitioner initially preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging
the orders contained in Annexures P-1 and P-2. The said petition
was registered as Writ Petition No. 5495 of 2022. However, since
the petitioner was appointed in the office of respondent No. 4,
which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the petition
was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the
appropriate Court vide order dated 15-3-2023 (Annexure P-10).
Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before
this Court seeking following reliefs :-
“10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the case

4
of the Petitioner from the possession of respondents
for its kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the
impugned orders Annexure P-1, Annexure P-2 and
Annexure P-3, in the interest of justice.
10.3 This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass
such other order(s) or direction(s), as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the
Petitioner against the respondents including the costs
of the petition under the facts and in the circumstance
of the case and in the interest of justice.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as the petitioner
was suffering from chest pain and other ailments, he was granted
leave for 30 days from 13-2-2017 to 14-3-2017. Since his health
did not improve, he submitted an application seeking medical
leave for six months. The same was not granted, and he was
directed either to report for duty or to undergo treatment at the
Combined Hospital, Central Reserve Police Force, Nagpur, vide
communication dated 1-4-2017 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner
reported for duty on 7-6-2017; however, respondent No. 3 did not
permit him to join and treated him as unauthorizedly absent with
effect from 15-3-2017. He further submits that, on account of
treating him as unauthorizedly absent, disciplinary proceeding was
initiated against him, in which an ex parte enquiry report was

5
submitted by the Inquiry Officer. On the basis thereof, the final
order dated 23-6-2018 (Annexure P-3) was passed by respondent
No. 3/Commandant, and he has been removed from service.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the appeal
preferred by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 14-
2-2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 2, and the
revision petition was also rejected vide order (Annexure P-1) dated
5-8-2019. Learned counsel submits that the enquiry report and
the final order of removal from service were passed against the
petitioner without affording him due opportunity of hearing and in
violation of the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, prays
that the impugned orders be set aside and the reliefs sought by
the petitioner be granted.
5. The respondents have filed their Reply. Referring thereto, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner was a member
of the armed forces and failed to report at his place of posting after
expiry of his leave period. She further submits that, after expiry of
the leave period, the petitioner did not join duty, and therefore, a
letter (Annexure R-1 colly) dated 22-3-2017 was issued directing
him to report for duty. Despite receipt thereof, he did not join his
duty. Accordingly, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him
and, after affording adequate opportunities of hearing to
participate in the departmental enquiry, he failed to participate,
which constrained the Inquiry Officer to submit an ex parte

6
enquiry report. Thus, it cannot be contended that petitioner was
denied an opportunity of hearing or that principles of natural justice
were violated. She further submits that, after receipt of enquiry
report, a copy thereof was served upon the petitioner and he was
called upon to submit his reply/representation vide Annexure R-11
dated 2-6-2018. However, he failed to submit any reply or
representation. Consequently, the final order dated 23-6-2018
(Annexure R-12) was passed removing him from service. She,
therefore, submits that the present writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed rejoinder controverting the
submission made by the respondents in their reply.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
8. From perusal of record, it is apparent that the petitioner was on
leave from 13-2-2017 to 14-3-2017. Thereafter, he applied for
extension of leave on medical grounds, but the same was rejected
and he was directed to report for duty. However, according to the
petitioner, when he attempted to join duty, he was not permitted to
do so. And treating him as unauthorizedly absent with effect from
15-3-2017, departmental proceeding was initiated against him, in
which an ex parte enquiry report was submitted, on the basis of
which he was removed from service vide order dated 23-6-2018
(Annexure P-3). In the light of the aforesaid facts, the main

7
contention of the petitioner is that he was not afforded due
opportunity of hearing and that the proceedings stand vitiated on
account of violation of the principles of natural justice.
9. Perusal of the order dated 23-6-2018 (Annexure P-3), whereby the
petitioner was removed from service by respondent No. 3, shows
that the following charges were levelled against him :
" – 01
मद
095252863 / -
यहकि बलसंख्या सिपाही जीडी राहुलसोपानहिंगारकर
/219 /
नेएसमवाय मेंसिपाही जीडीकेपदपरकार्यरतरहतेहुएकेन्द्रीय
-1949 -11 (1)
रिजर्वपुलिसबलअधिनियम कीधारा केतहतबलका
,
सदस्यहोनेकीहैसियतसेकदाचारकाएकअपराधकियाहै जिसमेंउसे
13/02/2017 14/03/2017 30
से तक दिनअर्जितअवकाशस्वीकृत
14/03/2017
कियागयाथातथाअवकाशकीसमाप्तिपरउसेदिनांक
,
कोरात्रिगणनामेंउपस्थि तहोनाथा किन्तुऐसानकरवदिनांक
15/03/2017 ( .)
पूर्वा सेवहबिनाकिसीप्राधिकारवसक्षमअधिकारीकी
,
अनुमति के अनाधिकृतरूपसेअपनीड्यूटीसेअनुपस्थि तगैरहाजिर

चलरहाथा।
: -2:
मद
095252863 / -
यहकि बलसंख्या सिपाही जीडी राहुलसोपानहिंगारकर
/219 /
नेएसमवाय मेंसिपाही जीडीकेपदपरकार्यरतरहतेहुएकेन्द्रीय
-1949 -11 (1)
रिजर्वपुलिसबलअधिनियम कीधारा केतहत्बलका

सदस्यहोनेकीहैसियतसेआदेशोंकीअवज्ञाकाएकगम्भीरअपराध
, /219 . -2/2017-
कियाहै जिसमेंए बटालियनके पत्रसंख्याएल दो
/219, 22/03/2017, 29/03/2017 219
ए दिनांक एवं बटालियनके

8
. -2/2017- -2/219 02/07/2017
पत्रसंख्याएल दो स्था दिनांक केद्वारा

ड्यूटीपररिपोर्टकरनेहेतुनिर्देशितकरनेकेबावजूदकार्मिकनेअभीतक
,
ड्यूटीपररिपोर्टनहींकियाहै जोकि बलकेसुनहरेवसूलोंवअनुशासन
”
केखि लाफहै।
10. Perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-3) shows that, after
completion of his leave on 14-3-2017, the petitioner was required
to report for duty at the time of roll call in the night of 14-3-2017;
however, he failed to join his duties. Instead, he submitted an
application dated 14-3-2017 seeking extension of his leave on the
ground that he was suffering from “ANEMIA WITH NON-ICTERUS
HEPATITIS WITH ENTERIC FEVER” and that the doctors had
advised him to remain on medical bed rest for six months. He also
annexed certain medical documents in support of his request.
Since the said medical documents had been prepared on the last
date of his leave, i.e., 14-3-2017, and advised such a long period
of medical rest at one stretch, the same were found to be
suspicious. Accordingly, respondent No. 3, vide communication
(Annexure P-4), directed the petitioner to report for duty as soon
as possible or to report to the Combined Hospital, CRPF, Nagpur,
for his treatment. He was also warned that failure to comply with
the said directions would be viewed seriously and would entail
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. However, the
petitioner neither complied with the aforesaid directions nor joined
his duties, despite being instructed to do so vide three

9
communications dated 22-3-2017, 29-3-2017 and 1-4-2017. Even
after he was declared an ‘absconder’ and a warrant of arrest was
issued against him, he failed to report for duty. Thus, the conduct
of the petitioner, even prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet,
was found to be completely negligent and reckless towards his
duties and the lawful directions issued by his superior authorities.
11.
The order (Annexure P-3) further reveals that, before
commencement of the departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer
informed the petitioner of his appointment as Inquiry Officer vide
registered letter (Annexure R-8) dated 16-3-2018 and directed him
to cooperate in the enquiry and appear in person to present his
case within 15 days, failing which the enquiry would be conducted
ex parte. However, within the stipulated period, the petitioner
neither appeared nor submitted any representation. Thereafter, a
further communication was issued to him vide letter (Annexure R-
2) dated 2-4-2018, but he again neither appeared nor submitted
any representation. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer proceeded
ex parte. The Inquiry Officer thereafter forwarded the statements
of all the witnesses recorded during the departmental enquiry to
the petitioner vide registered letter (Annexure R-10, collectively, at
page 58) dated 28-4-2018 and granted him a final opportunity to
appear in the departmental enquiry within 15 days. He was further
informed that, in the event of his failure to appear or to submit any
evidence, document or representation before the Inquiry Officer, it

10
would be presumed that he was unwilling to participate in the
enquiry and that the Inquiry Officer would proceed to complete the
enquiry and submit his report to respondent No. 4. Despite being
afforded the aforesaid opportunities, the petitioner did not appear.
Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer completed the enquiry and
submitted his report to respondent No. 4.
12.
In the final order, respondent No. 4 also recorded a finding that the
Inquiry Officer had conducted the departmental enquiry in
accordance with the prescribed rules and had afforded sufficient
opportunities to the petitioner to present his case and defence. It
was further observed that the petitioner had been directed to join
duty vide registered letters dated 22-3-2017, 29-3-2017 and 1-4-
2017. The petitioner himself reported at his Battalion Headquarters
on 9-6-2017 at 10:30 a.m.; however, on the same day at about
7:00 p.m., he absconded. The matter was also reported to Police
Station Konta, District Sukma. The petitioner did not respond to
the communications issued to him directing him to join duty. On an
application submitted by the Department, the Judicial Magistrate
First Class issued a warrant of arrest against him. A judicial
enquiry was also conducted and, on the basis of the report
submitted by the Presiding Officer, the petitioner was declared a
‘Absconder’ ( ).
भगोड़ा
13. The Inquiry Officer found charges Nos. 1 and 2 to be fully proved
and concluded that the conduct of the petitioner was derogatory to

11
the dignity of the Force, contrary to its discipline, and constituted
misconduct on his part as a member of the Force under Section
11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, punishable
under Section 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules,
1955. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner was also unable to point out any procedural irregularity
in conducting the enquiry which could demonstrate that the
findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority were perverse or
otherwise illegal.
14. Having considered the impugned order(s) passed by the
Disciplinary Authority, this Court is in agreement with the findings
and conclusions of the Disciplinary Authority, as affirmed by the
Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. Indiscipline on the
part of a member of an armed force has to be viewed seriously. It
is clear from the record that the petitioner intentionally disobeyed
the orders of his superior authorities and remained absent from
duty since 14-3-2017. He also failed to participate in the
disciplinary proceedings despite being afforded repeated
opportunities. Such conduct, particularly in the case of a member
of a disciplined armed force, amounts to gross misconduct and
warrants appropriate disciplinary action. Therefore, the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner that due opportunity was not
afforded to him is wholly unsustainable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

12
15. The issue of unauthorized absence by a member of disciplinary
force was taken into consideration by the Apex Court in the case
of Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad reported in [(2005)
13 SCC 709], wherein it has been held as under:
“8. The present case is not a case of a constable
merely overstaying his leave by 12 days. The
respondent took leave from 16-6-1997 and never
reported for duty thereafter. Instead he filed a writ
petition before the High Court in which the impugned
order has been passed. Members of the uniformed
forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas,
having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined on
these forces. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished,
will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. In such
forces desertion is a serious matter. Cases of this
nature, in whatever manner described, are cases of
desertion particularly when there is apprehension of the
member of the force being called upon to perform
onerous duties in difficult terrains or an order of
deputation which he finds inconvenient, is passed. We
cannot take such matters lightly, particularly when it
relates to uniformed forces of this country. A member of
a uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few
days must be able to give a satisfactory explanation.
However, a member of the force who goes on leave and
never reports for duties thereafter, cannot be said to be
one merely overstaying his leave. He must be treated
as a deserter. He appears on the scene for the first time
when he files a writ petition before the High Court,
rather than reporting to his Commanding Officer. We

13
are satisfied that in cases of this nature, dismissal from
the force is a justified disciplinary action and cannot be
described as disproportionate to the misconduct
alleged.”
16. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. P.L.
Singla reported in [(2008) 8 SCC 469] while dealing with
unauthorised absence, has held as under:
" 11. Unauthorised absence (or overstaying leave), is an
act of indiscipline. Whenever there is an unauthorised
absence by an employee, two courses are open to the
employer. The first is to condone the unauthorised
absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning
leave for the period of the unauthorised absence in
which event the misconduct stood condoned. The
second is to treat the unauthorised absence as a
misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment
for the misconduct.

14. Where the employee who is unauthorisedly absent
does not report back to duty and offer any satisfactory
explanation, or where the explanation offered by the
employee is not satisfactory, the employer will take
recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the
unauthorised absence. Such disciplinary proceedings
may lead to imposition of punishment ranging from a
major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a
minor penalty like withholding of increments without
cumulative effect. The extent of penalty will depend
upon the nature of service, the position held by the

14
employee, the period of absence and the
cause/explanation for the absence….”
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Tushar D. Bhatt Vs. State of
Gujarat and another reported in (2009) 11 SCC 678 has held as
under:
“19. In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 3
SCC 309] the settled legal position has been reiterated.
The Court held that absence from duty without proper
intimation is indicated to be a grave offence warranting
removal from service."
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in
(2014) 4 SCC 108 has held as under :-
"26. In Tushar D. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), the
appellant therein had remained unauthorisedly absent
for a period of six months and further had also written
threatening letters and conducted some other acts of
misconduct. Eventually, the employee was visited with
order of dismissal and the High Court had given the
stamp of approval to the same. Commenting on the
conduct of the appellant the Court stated that he was
not justified in remaining unauthorisedly absent from of­
ficial duty for more than six months because in the inter­
est of discipline of any institution or organisation such
an approach and attitude of the employee cannot be
countenanced."
19. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commandant

15
and Ors . Basavraj A.K. [Civil Appeal No. ……. /2026 (SLP (C)
No. 2568/2021)] Judgment dated 23-1-2026, has reiterated that,
unauthorized absence or overstaying leave in a disciplined force
like the CRPF is a serious misconduct.
20. As has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, in the instant
case, after completion of the one-month leave period, despite
being warned, the petitioner neither joined his duties nor reported
to the Combined Hospital, CRPF, Nagpur, for his treatment, as
was advised by the respondent authorities. Rather, he was
declared an ‘Absconder’ ( ). He remained unauthorizedly
भगोड़ा
absent not only for a period of more than six months, but also,
despite repeated communications, he failed to participate in the
disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the strict action taken against the
petitioner cannot be held to be illegal, particularly in view of the
aforesaid judgments rendered by the Apex Court.
21.
So far as the quantum of punishment in disciplinary proceedings
is concerned, it is well settled that the power of judicial review
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not directed
against the decision itself but against the decision-making
process. The Court cannot interfere merely because another view
is possible. It is equally well settled that interference with the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is warranted only
when the punishment is so disproportionate to the misconduct

16
proved that it shocks the conscience of the Court.
22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Ors
Vs. P Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610] , while dealing with the
scope of interference in service matters held as under :-
“ 12. …..In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is
not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The
High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture
into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can
only see whether:
( a ) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
( b ) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
( c ) there is violation of the principles of natural
justice in conducting the proceedings;
( d ) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the
case;
( e ) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
( f ) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so
wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable
person could ever have arrived at such
conclusion;
( g ) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
failed to admit the admissible and material
evidence;

17
( h ) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced
the finding;
( i ) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.”
23. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish that the
order imposing penalty was issued by an authority lacking
jurisdiction or that the procedure prescribed under the applicable
rules was not duly followed. Despite providing sufficient
opportunities to participate in the departmental enquiry
proceeding, petitioner did not participate in the proceeding, thus,
principles of natural justice has also been followed. In my
considered view, the petitioner, being member of a disciplined and
armed force, cannot be permitted to remain absent from duty on
untenable or frivolous grounds, particularly keeping in view the
nature of the duties entrusted to such forces. Any leniency towards
such conduct is likely to have an adverse impact on the discipline
and functioning of the force. Conduct of this nature assumes
greater significance for a member of the Force. In the
circumstances of the present case, and in the light of the judgment
cited above, removal from service also cannot be said to be an
excessive or disproportionate punishment and, therefore, the
same cannot be interfered with.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
infirmity or illegality in the order(s) passed by respondent authority
removing petitioner from his service and rejecting his

18
appeal/revision by the respondent authorities.
25. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to
costs.
26. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
pathak
AVANISH
KUMAR
PATHAK
Digitally signed
by AVANISH
KUMAR PATHAK
Date: 2026.09.09
16:34:29 +0530