IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 6326 of 2009 Vishal Waghale -Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sk. Mujibar Rahman For the respondents : Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee Heard on : 28.01.2025, 05.08.2025 Judgment on : 02.09.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 2000 after fulfilling all eligibility requirements. He rendered unblemished and satisfactory service, performing his duties diligently and without complaint until the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.

2. On 05.04.2005, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, alleging misconduct for overstaying leave without permission after availing sanctioned earned leave for 60 days (01.05.2004 to 29.05.2004) and returning only on

07.02.2005.

3. A departmental enquiry was initiated, with Shri S.L. Sengupta, 2nd-in-

Command, appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and explained his absence was due to serious illness and unavoidable domestic exigencies. He submitted medical records and relevant documents, which were accepted by the Enquiry Officer. Witnesses examined did not depose anything adverse against the petitioner. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner was never supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, depriving him of the opportunity to make a representation before the Disciplinary Authority.

4. By order dated 15.09.2006, the Commandant imposed the major penalty of removal from service further directing that the absence period (233 days) be treated as Dies Non, all medals and decorations earned be forfeited under Section 12(1) of the CRPF Act, outstanding dues, if any, be recovered from his settlement. This was done on the purported ground that the petitioner allegedly admitted the medical documents to be false, which the petitioner denied.

5. The petitioner’s appeal under Rule 28 of CRPF Rules, 1955, was rejected by order dated 09.05.2007 on stereotyped grounds, without proper consideration.

6. A revisional application under Rule 29 was thereafter filed on 16.06.2008, pointing out procedural irregularities and miscarriage of justice, but the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Eastern Sector, by order dated 26.10.2008, also rejected the revision without considering the new facts raised.

7. The disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was never furnished with a copy of the enquiry report, nor given an opportunity to contest its findings.

8. The charge under Section 11(1) CRPF Act, 1949 contemplated only minor punishments under clauses (a) to (e), such as reduction in rank, fine, or confinement, but not removal from service. Thus, imposition of the penalty of removal is ultra vires the statute and violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

9. The proper course for alleged misconduct of absence without leave was judicial trial under Section 10(m) read with Rule 36 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Instead, the respondents adopted a shortcut by initiating a departmental proceeding under Section 11(1), which was legally impermissible.

10. The proceedings were pre-determined and conducted without application of mind, with the authorities bent on imposing removal from service.

11. The petitioner had an unblemished record, and his absence could have been condoned or regularized by sanction of extraordinary leave, instead of imposing the harshest penalty.

12. The orders of the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities suffer from non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality, and are liable to be quashed. The impugned orders are violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 20(1), 21, and 311 of the Constitution of India, being arbitrary, excessive, and in disregard of statutory provisions.

13. The