Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Ajeet Kumar Katiya – Appellant
Versus
Central Reserve Police Force – Respondent
WPS No. 1968 of 2017 | WPS No. 3888 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amrito Das, Aditya Shrivastava, BP. Singh
For the Respondents: Ramakant Mishra
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.
Headnote:(A) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - S. 11(1) - Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - R. 27 - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal from service - Member of uniformed forces remaining absent from duty - Unauthorized absence treated as desertion - Challenge to penalty as disproportionate - Held, discipline in uniformed forces is paramount - Unauthorized absence is a serious act of misconduct - Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction should not interfere with punishment unless the procedure is violated or penalty is shockingly disproportionate. (Paras 6, 11)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of interference - High Court is not an appellate authority - Duty of High Court is limited to examining whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, following prescribed procedures and natural justice principles - Not to reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings unless findings are arbitrary or capricious. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, members of the CRPF, were terminated from service following departmental inquiries into their unauthorized prolonged absence from duty. The petitioners contended that their absence was due to medical issues and that the penalty of removal was disproportionate and that natural justice was violated due to lack of notice.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were members of a disciplined uniformed force where unauthorized absence is considered a serious desertion, thereby justifying the penalty of removal as not being disproportionate to the misconduct. The petitioners failed to prove procedural illegality or incompetence of the disciplinary authorities.
Issues: Whether the removal of the petitioners from service for unauthorized absence constitutes a disproportionate punishment and whether the disciplinary inquiries were conducted in violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: In uniformed services, unauthorized absence reflects gross indiscipline that is intolerable. Where the inquiry is properly held by a competent authority without violating due process or natural justice, the scope for judicial review regarding the proportionality of punishment is minimal unless it shocks the conscience of the court.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| For Petitioner | : | Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate (in WPS/1968/2017) Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. BP. Singh,Advocate (in WPS/3888/2017) |
| For Respondents | : | Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. S.G. |
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
