Concealment of arrest and furnishing false information for leave constitutes grave misconduct warranting removal from service.

The Petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was arrested on 01.06.2023 in connection with FIR No. 256/2023 under Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) and sent to judicial custody

Prior to his arrest, the Petitioner had been on sanctioned leave but failed to report back on 06.04.2023, subsequently overstaying without permission

He repeatedly applied for leave extensions using false facts and a forged medical document belonging to his brother to conceal his involvement in the criminal case

Upon discovery of his arrest through civil police, a departmental inquiry was initiated

The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of two charges: unauthorized absence/misleading the department and concealment of arrest

The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of "removal from service" on 22.03.2024, which was upheld by the Appellate [22.02.2025] and Revisional [23.09.2025] Authorities

1. Whether the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate given that the Petitioner had not yet been convicted in the criminal trial.

2. Whether the departmental proceedings violated the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the scope of judicial review under Article 226 allows for the reappreciation of evidence in disciplinary matters.

The court applied Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, and Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, regarding misconduct and deemed suspension

It reiterated the established principle that judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to examining procedural illegality, perversity, or violations of natural justice, rather than acting as an appellate authority

The court also relied on the principle that suppression of material facts or furnishing false information regarding a criminal case directly impacts an employee’s suitability for service in a disciplined force

The Court found that the Petitioner’s dismissal was not based solely on the FIR registration, but on the deliberate concealment of his arrest and the submission of false medical documents to obtain unauthorized leave

The Court noted that the Petitioner had admitted his guilt during the preliminary hearing, stating he "did not know" he had to inform the department

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court observed that the Petitioner was provided with all witness statements and reports and was given ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and engage a defense assistant, which he declined

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner belonged to a "disciplined force," his conduct in misleading the department and concealing a grave charge (murder) constituted a serious breach of integrity and trust, making the punishment of removal commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no ground for interference with the impugned orders