Court Finds Procedural Violations and Proportionality Issues in Disciplinary Action; Orders Notional Benefits Without Back Pay
In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, presided over by Justice Anand Sharma, has ordered the reinstatement of Hans Raj Doi, a Constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), after quashing the charges of desertion. The court found that the disciplinary proceedings against Doi were marred by procedural irregularities and violations of principles of natural justice, leading to an unjust removal from service.
The petitioner, Hans Raj Doi, challenged the penalty of removal from service and subsequent appellate and revisional orders, arguing that the charges against him were legally unsustainable. The court concurred, noting that the charge of desertion requires a permanent intention to abandon service, a criterion not met in Doi's case. Despite allegations of misconduct and indiscipline, the court emphasized that Doi's temporary absence due to medical reasons did not constitute desertion, as he voluntarily resumed duty shortly after.
Justice Sharma's judgment highlighted the failure of the CRPF to convene a mandatory Court of Enquiry before declaring Doi a deserter, a procedural safeguard established under Rule 31 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were based on an incorrect assumption of desertion, which was contrary to Doi's actual conduct and the statutory requirements under the CRPF Act, 1949.
The court further criticized the denial of natural justice in the disciplinary process, noting that Doi was not provided with necessary documents and was denied the opportunity to call defense witnesses. These procedural flaws, combined with the reliance on conjecture rather than evidence, vitiated the disciplinary proceedings.
In addressing the proportionality of punishment, the court deemed the removal from service for a short-term unauthorized absence as wholly disproportionate, especially when supported by medical evidence. The judgment underscored the importance of enforcing discipline with fairness, reasonableness, and humanity.
The court's decision to reinstate Doi came with the provision of continuity in service and seniority, although it denied actual monetary benefits for the intervening period, offering only notional benefits of pay-fixation instead. This balanced approach sought to rectify the procedural injustices while maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary framework.
This judgment sets a precedent in safeguarding the rights of uniformed personnel, emphasizing the necessity for strict adherence to statutory procedures and the principles of natural justice in disciplinary matters.
Bottom Line:
Disciplinary proceedings conducted against a member of a uniformed force must adhere to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice, and any charge of "desertion" must meet the strict legal requirements of animus deserendi (intention to permanently abandon service).
Statutory provision(s): Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 Sections 9(f), 10(m), 11; Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 Rule 31; Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hans Raj Doi v. Union of India, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2848784
