Telangana High Court Directs CRPF to Provide Relief to Family of Constable Missing Since 2015
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has ordered the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to process and disburse service and pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of a constable who has been missing for over a decade. The court set aside the CRPF's 2017 order of "removal from service" against the missing constable, emphasizing that the force cannot be absolved of its responsibility towards its members.
Court Criticizes CRPF's Insistence on FIR for Benefits
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, delivered a judgment on January 19, 2026, stating that the CRPF's requirement for the petitioner-father to lodge an FIR for his missing son is not mandatory for considering claims for service benefits. The bench remarked, "If such an approach is adopted by the respondent authorities of CRPF, it would discourage families from sending their wards to serve the Force." This observation underscores the court's concern that bureaucratic hurdles could deter future recruitment and undermine trust in the force.
Background of the Missing Constable Case
M Srikanth, a CRPF constable, went missing on June 1, 2015, while undergoing a computer course for rehabilitation at the Group Centre, CRPF, in Jharodakalan, New Delhi. This occurred after his left leg was amputated, highlighting his vulnerable state. Despite extensive efforts by the CRPF and investigating authorities, his whereabouts remain unknown. In response, the CRPF authorities declared him a deserter and passed an order on January 28, 2017, removing him from service.
Legal Battle and Petitioner's Claims
In 2021, Srikanth's father, M Appa Rao, approached the Telangana High Court with a petition challenging the 2017 removal order. He sought the implementation of a 2013 office memorandum from the Union Government that governs benefits for missing employees. The CRPF authorities argued that the petitioner had not lodged an FIR or obtained a police report confirming that Srikanth had not been traced, requesting the court to direct these steps along with an indemnity bond.
Court's Reasoning on Responsibility and Records
The bench noted that Srikanth was under the control of the Commanding Officer at the CRPF Group Centre when he went missing, which the court termed as "in effect in his regimental family." The court observed that the family's obligation to file a missing report would apply only if the constable had gone missing during ordinary duty or beyond duty hours. Additionally, the court pointed out that records and CCTV footage from the period have been weeded out or erased, stating that the respondent "cannot be absolved of their responsibility of maintaining the records and the CCTV footage for the period when they had themselves lodged a police report about his missing."
Final Ruling and Directions
Stressing that the removal order cannot be sustained in law, the court held that the CRPF authorities "cannot be absolved of their responsibility towards a member of their Uniform Force and the benefits to which the legal heirs or nominees of such employee are entitled to receive." In conclusion, the court directed the CRPF to process Srikanth's claim for service benefits, treating him as missing for over 10 years, and to disburse admissible service or pensionary benefits to his legal heirs as per pension rules. The writ petition was allowed in full, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
This ruling not only provides relief to the grieving family but also sets a precedent for how missing personnel cases should be handled, reinforcing the duty of care that forces owe to their members and their families.
