Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 694
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Sri prasanna roy, S/o Late Mahendra Roy – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Rep. By The Secy., Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi, And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/293 OF 2014
Decided On : 26-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Termination of Service
Act Referred
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ACT: S.10, S.11, S.9
Headnote
Facts of the case:
A temporary employee in a uniformed service was terminated following prolonged unauthorized absence and alleged desertion. The employee contended that the absence was due to severe illness, supported by medical documentation, while the employer maintained that the employee failed to adhere to reporting protocols and did not return to duty after being declared medically fit. Representations against the termination were rejected. The original petitioner passed away during the pendency of the legal proceedings, leading to the substitution of the legal heir.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that termination originating from specific allegations of desertion may be viewed as punitive rather than a discharge simpliciter. However, it was noted that the employee failed to follow mandated institutional procedures for reporting medical conditions, and administrative actions taken thereafter were deemed consistent with the rules governing temporary service. Given the demise of the petitioner, the court concluded that no substantive relief could be granted.
Issues: Whether the termination order was stigmatic and punitive, necessitating formal disciplinary proceedings, and whether the medical evidence provided justified the unauthorized absence.
Ratio Decidendi: While the court acknowledged that termination based on allegations of specific misconduct against temporary employees generally requires adherence to formal disciplinary procedures, it held that failure to comply with established medical reporting protocols precludes the petitioner from claiming improper discharge. Furthermore, the death of the petitioner rendered the writ petition infructuous as no effective relief could be provided.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Mr M Hazarika, Mr. M Pathak, Mr. M K Boro, Mr.N K Kalita, Ms. D Deka
For the Respondent: Asstt. S.G.I., Mrs. A Gayan, Mr. D Baruah,C.G.C., Mr. M Phukan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history regarding recruitment, training, illness, and subsequent service termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' contentions on the validity of termination and compliance with rule 5(1) ccs rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court’s assessment of chronological facts and the applicability of service rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. legal nature of service termination for desertion versus unauthorized absence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. evaluation of merit and final order for dismissal of the petition. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 27.11.2006, issued by the Additional DIGP, CRPF, by which the service of the petitioner is terminated on account of desertion from the Force and unauthorised absence with effect from the date of expiry of one month notice from the date on which order was served upon the petitioner.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner, Late Monoj Kumar Roy (hereinafter referred to as the deceased petitioner) as expired and by an order dated 21.07.2014, passed in MC Case No. 1403/2014, he has been allowed to be substituted by his father.
4. The case, in brief, is that pursuant to a recruitment process conducted by the respondent authorities, the deceased petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) vide order dated 02.06.2004 and was directed to report before the Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Amerigog, Guwahati on 22.06.2004 along with the offer letter. However, due to illness, the deceased petitioner could not report on the said date, which was duly intimated to the authorities, and upon such request, the respondent authority extended time for reporting. Thereafter, the deceased petitioner joined his service and was allotted Force No. 045132509 and attached to G/168 Battalion, CRPF. Subsequently, the deceased petitioner was posted in Gandhinagar, Gujarat to undergo his training. While undergoing training, the deceased petitioner fell seriously ill in the month of January, 2006 and was admitted to Gandhinagar Civil Hospital on 15.01.2006. However, due to deterioration of his health and inability of proper diagnosis, the deceased petitioner left the said hospital and returned to Guwahati, where he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. The deceased petitioner underwent a critical surgical operation on 27.01.2006 and remained under continuous medical treatment thereafter.
5. The petitioner contends that the respondent authorities were duly informed about the medical condition of the deceased petitioner from time to time by his family members, along with supporting medical documents. However, despite such communications, the respondent authorities repeatedly directed the deceased petitioner to report for duty and sought further medical documents. It is the case of the petitioner that owing to prolonged illness, including loss of eyesight and continuous treatment at different medical institutions, the deceased petitioner was unable to resume duty.
6. In the meantime, the respondent authorities issued the impugned order dated 27.11.2006 terminating the service of the deceased petitioner purportedly under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Being aggrieved, representations were submitted before the competent authorities seeking reconsideration of the case of the deceased petitioner on humanitarian grounds; however, the same have not been considered. A revision petition and appeal were preferred before the Respondent authorities which came to be rejected vide order dated 29.08.2007. Hence, this present writ petition.
7. Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on various occasions the father of the deceased petitioner and othe
