CRPF Head Constable’s Dismissal Stands After He Disobeyed Doda Transfer Despite Being Marked Fit for Light Duty: Patna HC

The petitioner, a CRPF Head Constable, was transferred from Patna to Doda after completing his tenure.

Following 107 days of medical rest, he was marked Attend-B on 8 August 2001, meaning fit for duty with light work for eight weeks.

He was relieved on 13 August 2001 and directed to obtain movement orders and proceed to Doda, but did not do so. He was suspended and subsequently remained absent from 21 August 2001.

A departmental inquiry was conducted ex parte after notices sent to his declared address were returned undelivered; he was dismissed on 25 February 2002 under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, read with Rule 27(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955.

His appeal and revision were rejected. After pursuing earlier writ proceedings and the departmental remedies, he sought quashing of the dismissal and appellate and revisional orders, and reinstatement

Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, read with Rule 27(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, was the stated authority for the dismissal order

The respondents relied on paragraph 62(B) of Section IV of the CRPF Medical Manual, 1998, for their position that Attend-B meant fitness for duty

The Court applied the principle that unauthorised absence and disobedience by a member of a disciplined force may constitute serious misconduct warranting disciplinary action, and that failure to participate in an inquiry does not by itself invalidate it where a reasonable opportunity was afforded through communication to the employee’s declared address

It referred to State of Punjab v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh, AIR 2025 SC 4011, concerning dismissal for proved misconduct following due procedure

It referred to M/S Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Arjun Gupta, Civil Appeal No. 8075 of 2026, concerning service at an address furnished to the employer and an employee’s responsibility to substantiate the reason for absence

The Court found that the petitioner had been marked Attend-B and directed to proceed to his new posting, but did not comply and remained absent from 21 August 2001.

It accepted that the inquiry notices had been sent to his declared address and that their return undelivered did not, without more, invalidate the ex parte proceedings.

The Court also noted that the inquiry report was not on the record and, in its absence, declined to assess the inquiry officer’s findings for illegality or perversity; it instead relied on the findings of the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities.

It concluded that the petitioner’s unauthorised absence and failure to maintain discipline, without a satisfactory basis to set aside the proceedings, did not warrant judicial interference

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of