When 'Absence' is Not 'Desertion': Rajasthan High Court Reinstates Decorated CRPF Constable

In a significant ruling protecting the rights of personnel in uniformed forces, the Rajasthan High Court has invalidated the removal of a CRPF constable, holding that a disciplinary authority cannot label a brief, medically-supported absence as "desertion" without proving a deliberate intention to permanently abandon the service.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Anand Sharma in Hans Raj Doi v. Union of India , serves as a strong reminder that the rigor of military discipline does not dispense with the necessity of fairness and evidence-based findings.

The Backdrop: A Career Marred by Administrative Overreach

The petitioner, Hans Raj Doi, joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in 1995. During his service, he distinguished himself with eight cash rewards and commendations for his role in sensitive operations, including post-riot duties in Gujarat and disaster relief during the Bhuj earthquake.

However, the petitioner's career took a turn in 2001 when he faced a charge-sheet alleging "desertion" during training, residing outside the camp without permission, and habitual indiscipline. The department imposed the extreme penalty of removal from service in 2002. After years of legal battle against the appellate and revisional orders, the matter reached the High Court .

Competing Narratives: Medical Emergency vs. Disciplinary Rigor

The petitioner argued that his absence from training was not a willful act of desertion, but a consequence of acute renal colic and his wife's deteriorating health, both substantiated by medical records. He contended that his return to duty of his own volition—within just 20 days—negated the legal basis for a desertion charge.

The Union of India , represented by the CRPF, maintained that discipline is the "backbone" of the force and asserted that the petitioner's history of minor indiscipline justified the removal. They argued that the term "deserter" in the charge-sheet was a technicality and that the substance of the disciplinary proceedings—unauthorised absence—was proven.

The Court’s Analysis: The Requirement of Animus Deserendi

Justice Anand Sharma’s analysis centered on the statutory distinction between "less heinous offences" ( Section 10 of the CRPF Act) and "more heinous offences" ( Section 9 , which includes desertion).

The Court highlighted that "desertion" is not merely unauthorised absence; it requires animus deserendi —the willful, permanent intent to abandon one’s duty. Citing the Supreme Court ’s precedent in Union of India & Others v. Datta Linga Toshatwad , the Court reiterated that:

> "Once the charge-sheet itself admits that the petitioner returned to duty, the essential ingredient of animus deserendi stands negated, rendering the very invocation of desertion provisions legally impermissible."

The Court further criticized the respondents for failing to follow the procedural mandates under Rule 31 of the CRPF Rules, which prescribes specific steps, including a Court of Enquiry, before an employee can be branded a deserter.

Key Observations from the Bench

The judgment underscored several critical lapses in the departmental proceedings:

• On the Misclassification of Charges : "The disciplinary authority must first correctly classify the misconduct before proceeding to punishment, failing which the entire action becomes arbitrary."
• On Evidence Evaluation : The Court noted that the department ignored official records, such as the prior written permission allowing the petitioner to keep his family near the camp, which nullified the second charge of unauthorized residence.
• On Equality and Fairness : "Discipline cannot be enforced at the cost of fairness, reasonableness and humanity."
• On Procedural Violation : "The non-supply of relied-upon documents and denial of defence witnesses vitiate the enquiry... such an approach strikes at the very root of fair procedure."

A Path to Reinstatement

Finding that the entire disciplinary foundation was built upon a "misconceived premise," the Court set aside all orders starting from the 2002 penalty order. The CRPF has been ordered to reinstate the petitioner with full continuity of service and seniority. While the court directed that actual monetary back wages be replaced with notional benefits, the decision stands as a victory for the principle that, even in paramilitary organizations, the label of "desertion" must be based on proven intent rather than conjecture.

This ruling provides a vital precedent for future service law disputes, reinforcing that the gravity of a penalty must match the substance of the established facts, not merely the convenience of administrative categorizations.