Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sandeep Moudgil, J
Gurbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
CWP-36966-2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Sodhi
For the Respondents: Anita Balyan

Unauthorized absence from duty in a disciplined paramilitary force constitutes grave misconduct; disciplinary proceedings conducted ex-parte following the employee's failure to respond to legitimate notices do not violate natural justice, and reinstatement orders conditional upon joining duty are self-operative upon non-compliance.

Headnote:(A) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Section 11(1) - Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - Rule 27 - Unauthorized absence - Misconduct in paramilitary forces - Petitioner remained absent for 290 days - Disciplinary proceedings conducted ex-parte after multiple notices remained unheeded - Removal from service imposed - Revisional authority reinstated with conditions - Non-compliance with reinstatement conditions lead to cancellation - Principles of natural justice satisfied when delinquent employee ignores specific opportunities to participate - Judicial review of disciplinary action is limited to assessing procedural legality and proportionality - Unauthorized absence in a disciplined force is grave misconduct.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a constable in the CRPF, remained absent from duty for 290 days citing medical reasons. Despite multiple notices and an arrest warrant, he failed to report or produce substantial medical documentation. Following an ex-parte departmental inquiry, he was removed from service. A later conditional reinstatement order was issued by the revisional authority, requiring the petitioner to join at a specific battalion, but the petitioner failed to report and sought transfer to a location of his choice.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the departmental proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities. It held that the authority to dismiss a member of the force exists under the Act and Rules when misconduct and disobedience are proven. The cancellation of the conditional reinstatement was merely a self-operative consequential order due to the petitioner's failure to join.

Issues: Whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated by procedural irregularities; whether the punishment of removal was legally permissible under the Act; and whether the cancellation of conditional reinstatement required a fresh show-cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee who intentionally abstains from participating in disciplinary proceedings after receiving due notice cannot later claim a violation of natural justice. Unauthorized absence in a paramilitary force is grave misconduct warranting major penalty, and disciplinary actions by competent authorities in such matters are not to be interfered with unless found perverse or illegal.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the disciplinary action and subsequent petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. competing arguments regarding procedural compliance and validity of punishment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. court's analysis on ex-parte proceedings and validity of disciplinary measures under crpf act. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. court's observation on the self-operative nature of conditional reinstatement and limited judicial review. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. final conclusion dismissing the writ petition. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)

1.	The date when the judgment is reserved	22.04.2026
2.	The date when the judgment is pronounced	25.05.2026
3.	The date when the judgment is uploaded	26.05.2026
4.	Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced	Full
5.	The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof.	Not applicable

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

Prayer

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the punishment order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure P-1), appellate order dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure P-3), order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure P-9) cancelling the reinstatement of the petitioner, and order dated 22.09.2019 (Annexure P-11), whereby the penalty of removal from service came to be affirmed. The petitioner further seeks reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, including continuity in service, seniority and arrears of pay.

The Conspectus Of Facts

2. The petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 2013 as a Water Carrier and was posted in 51 Battalion, Hallomajra, Chandigarh. The petitioner was granted sanctioned leave from 06.04.2017 to 05.05.2017 due to domestic problems and went to his native village at Samana, Patiala. During the leave period, the petitioner suffered from Cholera, Sciatica, depression, insomnia, and severe mental trauma due to matrimonial disputes. He remained under continuous treatment at various hospitals in Patiala and Chandigarh and was advised complete bed rest.

3. The petitioner informed the department regarding his illness and requested extension of leave through various communications including a fax dated 29.05.2017, but no decision was taken on his request. Despite knowledge of his medical condition, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him alleging unauthorized absence from duty from 06.05.2017 onwards.

4. A charge-sheet dated 04.10.2017 under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act was issued for a minor penalty, however, the inquiry was conducted ex parte while the petitioner was unable to participate. Based on the ex parte inquiry report dated 24.01.2018, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 19.02.2018 removing him from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed on 21.05.2018 without proper consideration of the medical records and treatment documents submitted by him.

5. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority considered the petitioner’s medical condition and vide order dated 03.09.2018 set aside the removal order and reinstated him in service with a minor punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. However, while reinstating him, the petitioner was directed to report at 227 Battalion, Chhattisgarh despite his continuous treatment at PGI Chandigarh and hospitals in Patiala. The petitioner thereafter submitted representations requesting posting in a nearby battalion considering his medical treatment at Chandigarh and Patiala.

6. Without issuing any show-cause notice or granting opportunity of hearing, the authorities subsequently cancelled the petitioner’s reinstatement vide order dated 18.02.2019 solely on the ground of non-joining at Chhattisgarh. The petitioner again filed an appeal along with medical documents and express

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHSandeep Moudgil, JGurbir Singh – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentCWP-36966-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sandeep Moudgil, J
Gurbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
CWP-36966-2019