Punjab & Haryana HC sets aside dismissal of CRPF constable, restores his service

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that absence from duty cannot be equated with misconduct, unless it is proved to be deliberate. Making it clear that constitutional guarantees of fairness and dignity remain paramount even in disciplined forces, Justice Sandeep Moudgil ruled “absence per se does not constitute misconduct unless it is deliberate.”

Putting emphasis on the larger constitutional balance, he asserted that: “The state, even in its capacity as employer in a disciplined force, is bound by fairness under Articles 14 and 21. A member of a uniformed force does not forfeit his humanity at the altar of discipline. Institutional discipline and individual dignity are not antithetical, but are complementary constitutional values.”

The assertions came as Justice Moudgil set aside the dismissal of a CRPF personnel and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service, arrears and 6 per cent interest. The petitioner, enrolled in 2006 and serving as a constable, had proceeded on sanctioned leave in May 2018, but failed to report back on time after suffering a foot injury in a road accident.

Medical records showed continued treatment, including prolonged hospitalisation for a non-healing ulcer and subsequent complications, yet the authorities declared him a proclaimed person in December 2018, stopped his salary and conducted an ex-parte inquiry, culminating in his dismissal in April 2019.

Justice Moudgil found that the very foundation of the action, wilful absence, was unproven and the authorities mechanically invoked provisions relating to desertion without examining whether the constable was “incapacitated, rather than absconding”. The Bench cautioned that “statutory power cannot be exercised in abstraction of facts and it must be tethered to reason.”

Justice Moudgil found the inquiry process fundamentally flawed, while asserting that “mere dispatch of notices does not satisfy the mandate of fair opportunity” and that an ex-parte inquiry in such circumstances became “a façade of fairness”.

On the question of punishment, the Bench held the dismissal to be inappropriate and said that the constable had been given the harshest penalty for absence intertwined with medical exigencies. “The punishment, in its severity, points at the non-application of mind,” the Bench asserted.

The court made it clear that disciplinary authorities had discretion in imposing penalties, but the same “should neither be vindictive, nor harsh” and must not “shock the conscience of the court”.

Setting aside both declaration of desertion and the dismissal order, the HC directed reinstatement with full consequential benefits, including arrears with interest, to be released within six weeks.