In disciplinary matters involving uniformed forces, unauthorized absence constitutes gross indiscipline (desertion); High Courts, under Article 226, should not substitute their view on the proportionality of punishment or reappreciate evidence unless the disciplinary inquiry violates statutory rules or principles of natural justice.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order On Board

25.3.2026

1) In these petitions, petitioners have challenged the orders passed

by disciplinary authorities, appellate authorities and revisional

authorities whereby services of petitioners have been terminated.

2) Facts of WPS No. 1968 of 2017 are that petitioner, namely, Ajeet

Kumar Katiya was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in 212

Battalion, CRPF. He remained on leave for period of 30 days from

6.2.2014 to 8.3.2014 with permission and due to medical

problems, he could not join the services after said period. On

13.2.2015, petitioner was informed by Police Station Themi,

Madhya Pradesh that he has been terminated from services.

Petitioner approached the department and came to know that ex

parte departmental inquiry was conducted against him and major

penalty of dismissal from services has been inflicted against him

by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 13.2.2015. Petitioner

preferred departmental appeal which was dismissed by the

appellate authority vide order dated 10.8.2015. Petitioner

preferred revision which was also dismissed vide order dated

1.5.2016.

3) Facts of WPS No. 3888 of 2017 are that petitioner, namely,

Naresh Kumar who was working on the post of Cook was relieved

from 80th Battalion, CRPF on 3.3.2015 and he was supposed to

report at 194th Battalion, CRPF on 14.3.2015 but he fell sick and

did not join the services for period of 434 days from 14.3.2015 to

19.5.2016. In between, a departmental inquiry was initiated and

after its completion, disciplinary authority vide order dated

29.11.2016 removed the petitioner from services. Petitioner

preferred departmental appeal which was also dismissed vide

order dated 10.7.2017.

4) Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

WPS No. 1968 of 2017 submits that penalty inflicted on the

petitioner is wholly excessive and disproportionate looking to the

alleged misconduct and Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary

Authority ought to have considered the medical condition of

petitioner and his wife. He further submits that petitioner was not

afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and order of removal

was passed without service of notice. He prays to quash the

orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority

and revisional authority.

5) Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner in WPS No. 3888 of 2017 submits that petitioner could

not join the services on account of medical conditions and

sufficient material was placed before the appellate authority but

the authority concerned failed consider those documents. He

further submits that departmental inquiry was concluded without

service of notice, thus removal order was passed in utter violation

to the principles of nature justice. He prays to quash the orders

passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority.

6) On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor

General appearing for the respondents submits that petitioners

were members of armed forces and they failed to report at their

respective places of posting after completion of leave period. He

further submits that notices were sent to petitioners at their

addresses mentioned in service book through registered post and

they were declared ‘deserter’. He contends that thereafter, article

of charges was issued ; Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer

were appointed in both departmental inquiries ; department

examined its witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. He

further contends that Inquiry Officer submitted its report before

the disciplinary authority, who concurred with the inquiry report

and inflicted the penalty of removal from services in both

departmental inquiries according to Section 11(1) of