Court Quashes Removal Order; Directs CRPF to Compensate Family Without Mandatory FIR
In a significant judgment, the Telangana High Court has directed the Union of India and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to grant service benefits to the family of M. Srikanth, a CRPF constable who went missing in 2015 during his training at the Group Centre in Jharodakalan, New Delhi. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, quashed the removal order against Srikanth, ruling it as improper given the circumstances of his disappearance.
The constable, M. Srikanth, was undergoing training as part of a rehabilitation program due to an amputation when he went missing. His father, M. Appa Rao, filed a writ petition challenging the CRPF's decision to remove Srikanth from service for desertion. The court found that Srikanth was under the CRPF's control when he disappeared and criticized the authorities for failing to maintain adequate records and CCTV footage.
Highlighting the inadequacy of the CRPF’s record-keeping, the court stated that the absence of a missing complaint by Srikanth’s family should not impede the disbursement of service benefits. The court noted that the CRPF had already lodged a missing report with the police, and despite efforts, Srikanth remained untraceable for over a decade.
The judgment underscored the responsibility of uniformed forces in maintaining records and ensuring the welfare of their personnel. It also emphasized that the insistence on an FIR by the petitioner’s family was unwarranted, given the CRPF's failure to trace the missing constable.
The court directed the CRPF to process the claim for service benefits in favor of Srikanth's legal heirs or nominees, contingent upon the furnishing of an indemnity bond. This decision is expected to serve as a precedent for similar cases where personnel go missing under official duty.
Bottom Line:
Service benefits must be granted to the legal heirs or nominees of a missing constable of CRPF, despite the absence of a mandatory FIR for missing persons, if the constable was under the control and command of the Group Centre when missing, and efforts to trace him have failed for over a decade.
Statutory provision(s): Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Section 10(m); CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 54
Shri M. Appa Rao v. Union of India, (Telangana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2864962
