The duration of stoppage of increment cannot exceed one year as per Rule 72 of CRPF Rules 1955, and willful absence must be proven in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order bearing No. P-8.01/2011-22-Est-2 dated 24.12.2011, by virtue of which the increment of the petitioner for two years without cumulative effect has been stopped and the petitioner has been treated as deserter/absentee from 24.11.2010 to 26.12.2010.The petitioner has also impugned the order dated 19.07.2012, by virtue of which the respondent No. 3 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.12.2011.The order dated 10.12.2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 2 has also been impugned by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to release the increment which has not been given to the petitioner since 29.12.2013.

2. The petitioner has impugned the orders mentioned above on the ground that the respondent No. 4 had sanctioned leave on 23.11.2010 for 20 days, on the application filed by the petitioner. As soon as the petitioner left the station, the respondent No. 4 immediately on 24.11.2010 due to some personal grudge issued warrant against the petitioner which was forwarded for its execution to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri. The petitioner even apprised the respondent No. 2 about all these facts in his application dated 27.11.2010 and further submitted that the petitioner shall immediately report to Unit after the recovery of his wife from her ailment. The comments were sought by the respondent No.2 from the respondent No. 4. After hearing the petitioner, the Commandant-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, 133 Bn CRPF, Ranchi, Jharkhand, cancelled the warrants issued against the petitioner. Despite the fact, that the petitioner had not deserted the force and was not un-authorized absentee, the petitioner was tried on false and frivolous charges and ultimately the punishment of stoppage of one increment for two years without cumulative effect and no pay for the leave period, was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the order dated 24.12.2011 before the respondent No. 3 but the respondent No. 3 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case rejected the application vide order dated 19.07.2012. The petitioner again approached the respondent No. 2 through the medium of appeal but the same too was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2012. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

3. The respondents have filed the response, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner informally met Commandant 22 Bn. and requested for 30 days leave, but due to pressure of duties, 20 days leave was sanctioned to the petitioner. The petitioner refused to accept the leave certificate and asked for his return to original company i.e. D/22 from where he would like to proceed on leave after panchayat elections. In the afternoon, BHM reported that petitioner without receiving the movement order or leave certificate was missing from the camp. After thorough search in and around the camp, it was confirmed that he had deserted the camp, which is an offence under CRPF Act 1949, read with Rules of 1955. FIR was lodged and warrants of arrest were also issued against him. The petitioner joined on his own on 27.12.2010. The warrants issued against the petitioner were recalled. After deserting the camp on 23.11.2010, the petitioner sent a written complaint dated 27.11.2010 addressed to IGP, CRPF Jammu. The para-wise comments on the application of the petitioner were submitted to IGP Jammu. IGP Jammu Sector vide signal dated 25.01.2011 directed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the departmental enquiry was ordered vide order dated 04.04.2011. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself during the course of enquiry but he fail