Prolonged unauthorized absence by disciplined-force personnel justifies removal from service as proportionate punishment.

The petitioner, a CRPF Constable appointed on 25 March 2009, was granted 30 days’ leave from 13 February 2017 to 14 March 2017.

On medical grounds, he sought a further six months’ leave, supported by medical documents. The request was rejected, and he was directed either to report for duty or undergo treatment at the Combined Hospital, CRPF, Nagpur.

Despite communications dated 22 March, 29 March and 1 April 2017, he did not report for duty or undergo the directed treatment and was treated as unauthorisedly absent from 15 March 2017.

A departmental enquiry was initiated for unauthorised absence and disobedience of orders.

The Inquiry Officer issued repeated notices, including notices dated 16 March and 2 April 2018 and a final opportunity dated 28 April 2018, but the petitioner neither appeared nor submitted a defence. The enquiry therefore proceeded ex parte.

The petitioner was allegedly declared an absconder and an arrest warrant was issued against him.

The Disciplinary Authority removed him from service by order dated 23 June 2018. His appeal dated 14 February 2019 and revision dated 5 August 2019 were rejected.

Whether the departmental enquiry and order of removal were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice because the enquiry proceeded ex parte?

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged unauthorised absence and alleged disobedience of directions constituted misconduct under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955?

Whether removal from service was so disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, concerning misconduct by a member of the Force, read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which permits disciplinary punishment for such misconduct.

Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad, (2005) 13 SCC 709, holding that prolonged absence by a member of a uniformed force may amount to desertion and justify dismissal.

State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469, holding that unauthorised absence is an act of indiscipline warranting disciplinary action and punishment proportionate to the circumstances.

Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 11 SCC 678, recognising unauthorised absence without proper intimation as a grave offence.

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, emphasising the importance of discipline in public service.

The Court also applied the restricted scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters under Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610: the High Court may examine jurisdiction, procedural compliance, natural justice, perversity, irrelevant considerations and whether the finding is supported by evidence, but cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court.

Removal may be interfered with on proportionality grounds only where it shocks the conscience of the Court.

The Court found that the petitioner’s leave expired on 14 March 2017, after which he neither resumed duty nor complied with the direction to report to the CRPF hospital.

His continued absence, despite repeated communications, supported the charges of unauthorised absence and disobedience.

The Court rejected the natural-justice challenge because the petitioner received multiple notices to participate in the enquiry, was warned that it would proceed ex parte, was supplied with the recorded witness statements, and was granted a final opportunity to appear or submit evidence.

His non-participation was therefore treated as voluntary, not as denial of a fair hearing.

Applying the principles governing disciplined and armed forces, the Court held that prolonged unauthorised absence and failure to obey lawful directions constituted serious misconduct.

It further held that the disciplinary and appellate authorities’ conclusions were supported by the record and that removal from service was not disproportionate, particularly in view of the petitioner’s alleged abscondence and failure to participate in the proceedings.

It held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedure, that sufficient opportunities of hearing were provided, and that the petitioner’s unauthorised absence and disobedience constituted serious misconduct under the CRPF disciplinary framework.

The punishment of removal from service was held neither illegal nor disproportionate.

Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the orders dated 23 June 2018, 14 February 2019 and 5 August 2019 was dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.