Willful Absence Justifies 'Deserter' Tag and Dismissal for Uniformed Personnel: J&K and Ladakh High Court - 2025-09-04

J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal of CRPF Constable, Rules Prolonged Absence Amounts to Desertion

Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant ruling on service discipline, has dismissed an appeal by a former Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable, affirming that prolonged unauthorized absence by a member of a uniformed force is a grave misconduct tantamount to desertion, justifying the penalty of dismissal.

A division bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the 2019 judgment of a single-judge bench, which had found no fault in the disciplinary proceedings that led to the dismissal of Nasir Ahmad Parray from service in 2007.

Background of the Case

Nasir Ahmad Parray, appointed as a CRPF Constable in 1994, went on sanctioned leave from October 27, 2005, to December 5, 2005. He failed to report for duty on December 6, 2005, citing deteriorating health conditions. Despite claiming he was undergoing medical treatment, Parray remained absent for years.

In 2013, he approached the court claiming he was not being allowed to rejoin his unit. Only then, he stated, did he learn of his dismissal dated February 26, 2007, which followed an ex-parte departmental enquiry. Parray challenged the dismissal, arguing it violated the principles of natural justice as he was never informed of the proceedings and his absence was due to genuine medical reasons.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Appellant's Arguments: Parray’s counsel contended that his absence was not deliberate but was forced by his poor health. He argued that the ex-parte departmental enquiry was conducted without notifying him, thereby violating natural justice. He further submitted that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate for an offence of "overstaying leave," which he classified as a "less heinous offence" under the CRPF Act, 1949.

• Respondents' Arguments: The Deputy Solicitor General of India, representing the Union of India and CRPF, countered that Parray was a willful absentee. The department had made numerous attempts to contact him, including sending multiple notices to his home address and dispatching a special messenger. The enquiry was initiated only after all attempts to secure his presence failed. The counsel argued that all codal formalities were observed before the dismissal order was passed.

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the records of the departmental enquiry and rejected the appellant's claims. The bench found "abundantly clear" evidence that the CRPF had made extensive efforts to inform Parray at every stage of the proceedings.

Violation of Natural Justice Rejected: The Court noted that multiple notices were sent via registered post, a warrant was issued for his apprehension, and a special messenger was dispatched. The judgment highlighted a "startling revelation" from the messenger's report:

"...on his visit, a startling revelation came to fore that the Appellant, to the surprise of everybody, found to have been running a Garment shop near his residence."

This finding severely undermined Parray’s claim of being incapacitated by illness. The Court concluded that Parray's plea of violation of natural justice was "not only misconceived, but also self-defeating."

Medical Grounds Debunked: The bench found no evidence that Parray was ever admitted as an indoor patient. His medical records only showed treatment as an outdoor patient, which did not justify a multi-year absence from duty. The Court also pointed out inconsistencies in his claims, such as his family telling police he was being treated in Jammu while providing medical certificates from Srinagar.

Absence as 'Desertion': The Court firmly established that a prolonged, unauthorized absence from a disciplined force is not a mere case of overstaying leave. Citing Rule 31 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 , and Supreme Court precedent in Union of India & Ors. v. Datta Linga Toshatwad , the bench held:

"A member of a uniformed force who overstays his leave and never reports for duties, must be treated as a 'deserter', therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service of such member of uniformed force cannot be described as disproportionate to the alleged misconduct."

The judgment emphasized the high standard of discipline expected from members of uniformed forces and stated that indiscipline must be dealt with sternly to maintain the integrity of the force.

Final Decision

Finding no procedural illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice in the departmental enquiry, the High Court concluded that the single-judge bench had correctly dismissed Parray's writ petition.

"For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error of fact or law committed by the Writ Court," the bench declared, dismissing the appeal as "devoid of any merit."