Raj HC holds appeal barred against punishment of censure under CRPF Rules

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the right of appeal is a statutory creation and, in the absence of an express provision, no appellate authority can assume jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. The Court held that Rule 28(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 expressly bars an appeal against punishments falling under Serial Nos. 8 to 11 of the Table appended to Rule 27, which includes the punishment of censure, and any appellate or revisional proceedings arising from such a non-maintainable appeal are without jurisdiction.

Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati recorded that once the statute itself imposes a clear prohibition on an appellate remedy, the appellate authority cannot assume jurisdiction by interpretative process. The Court relied upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, holding that courts cannot create or assume a right of appeal where none exists under the statute.

These observations were made while allowing a writ petition filed by Sunil Kumar, a CRPF personnel, challenging the punishment order dated January 21, 2003, the appellate order dated June 9, 2003, and the revisional order dated January 22, 2004.

The petitioner had initially been charge-sheeted on September 22, 1998 for disobedience of the order of a superior officer. The departmental inquiry culminated in an order of censure dated September 29, 2000. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which was decided on March 22, 2001 by setting aside the inquiry and directing a de novo inquiry on the ground that the petitioner had sought opportunity to cross-examine certain witnesses.

Pursuant thereto, a fresh charge-sheet dated April 19, 2001 was issued, and the subsequent inquiry resulted in an order imposing stoppage of two grade increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1955. On appeal, the punishment was modified to stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect by order dated June 9, 2003, and the revision petition was dismissed on January 22, 2004.

The petitioner contended that in view of Rule 28(b) of the Rules of 1955, no appeal was maintainable against the punishment of censure, which falls under Serial No. 9 of the Table to Rule 27, and therefore the very entertainment of the appeal and all subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction.

The High Court, after examining Rules 27 and 28(b), held that the statutory scheme unequivocally barred an appeal against censure and that the appellate and revisional authorities could not have assumed jurisdiction. The Court recorded that since the appeal itself was not maintainable, all proceedings flowing from such appeal stood vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the punishment order dated January 21, 2003, the appellate order dated June 9, 2003, and the revisional order dated January 22, 2004, along with all consequential proceedings. The Court directed that the earlier order dated September 29, 2000 awarding censure alone shall survive and remain operative.

Case Title
Sunil Kumar vs Union of India & Others

Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 685/2005

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Date of Judgment
February 2, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj Jangid for Ms. Abhilasha Bora
For the respondents: None present