Rajasthan High Court Reinstates CRPF Constable After 23 Years, Criticizes 'Shockingly Disproportionate' Penalty
The Rajasthan High Court has delivered a landmark verdict, setting aside the removal from service of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable in 2002 and directing his reinstatement. Justice Anand Sharma, while hearing a petition filed by constable Hans Raj Doi, ruled that the disciplinary proceedings were legally flawed and procedurally unfair, culminating in a punishment deemed "shockingly disproportionate."
Court Slams Procedural Lapses and Perverse Findings
In its February 3 verdict, the court emphasized that discipline cannot be enforced at the cost of fairness, reasonableness, and humanity. The judgment highlighted several critical observations:
- Branding a short-term absence as desertion reflects non-application of mind and a colourable exercise of power.
- There was no finding that Doi's absence was willful and without justification.
- The enquiry suffered from serious procedural infirmities, including failure to supply documents to the petitioner despite specific demands.
- The chargesheet was fundamentally flawed, and the enquiry proceeded on a misconceived premise.
The court noted that the audi alteram partem principle—meaning "hear the other side"—was violated, striking at the root of fair procedure. It also pointed out that minor penalties already undergone by the petitioner cannot justify the harshest penalty of removal from service.
Medical Emergency at the Core of the Case
Constable Hans Raj Doi consistently maintained that his brief absence from November 17 to December 5, 2001, was due to acute renal colic, hospitalization, and the serious illness of his wife. This was supported by medical records from civil and private hospitals. The court noted that the chargesheet itself admitted Doi returned to duty within about 20 days, which legally negated any allegation of "desertion," as it requires an intention to permanently abandon service.
The judgment underscored that the punishment of removal from service, imposed on a constable with a proven record of gallantry, dedication, and appreciation, for alleged misconduct arising largely out of medical exigencies, is wholly disproportionate. It cautioned disciplinary authorities against losing sight of fairness, proportionality, and humanity, especially where medical emergencies and past meritorious service are clearly established.
Background and Service Record
Doi was appointed as a constable in 1995 and served at the CRPF group centre in Ajmer before being posted to the Rapid Action Force in Ahmedabad. His service record showed repeated commendations, cash rewards on eight occasions, and appreciation letters for sensitive duties. His postings included deployments in Gujarat after the 2002 Godhra incident and rescue operations during the Bhuj earthquake.
A chargesheet filed on February 11, 2002, accused him of desertion during training, unauthorized residence outside the camp, indiscipline during a course, and being a habitual offender. Following a departmental enquiry, the commandant imposed the penalty of removal from service on July 27, 2002, which was upheld in subsequent appeals and revisions.
Relief Granted by the High Court
Quashing all five orders related to the case, the high court directed the CRPF to reinstate Doi with continuity of service and seniority. However, it limited monetary relief, ordering that back wages for the intervening period would not be payable, and benefits would be granted on a notional basis. The exercise must be completed within 60 days.
The court also criticized the appellate and revisional authorities, stating their orders were cryptic, mechanical, and non-speaking, failing to analyze evidence or findings, thus defeating the purpose of statutory remedies.
This verdict serves as a significant reminder of the importance of procedural fairness and proportionality in disciplinary actions, particularly in cases involving medical emergencies and exemplary service records.
