Rajasthan High Court quashes CRPF constable’s removal, holds short absence cannot be treated as desertion

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that desertion under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 requires a deliberate and permanent intention to abandon service, and that mere unauthorised or temporary absence followed by voluntary resumption of duty does not constitute desertion in law. The court held that branding such absence as desertion reflects non-application of mind and vitiates disciplinary proceedings founded on that premise.

The High Court further held that where the foundational charge itself is legally unsustainable, all consequential proceedings including the enquiry, findings and punishment must necessarily fail. The court reiterated that there exists a clear statutory distinction between the offences of “desertion” under Section 9 of the CRPF Act and “absence without leave” under Section 10, carrying vastly different consequences, and that disciplinary authorities must correctly classify the alleged misconduct before proceeding to punishment.

These observations were made by Justice Anand Sharma while allowing a writ petition filed by Hans Raj Doi, a constable of the Central Reserve Police Force, challenging his removal from service.

The petitioner had assailed the order dated July 27, 2002 by which he was removed from service, along with appellate, revisional and subsequent rejection orders passed between November 2002 and July 2003. He sought reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The court recorded that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) in 1995 and had served in CRPF Group Centre, Ajmer and later with 100 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Ahmedabad. The petitioner placed on record certificates showing appreciation and cash rewards on multiple occasions, acknowledgements of his service during post-riot duties in Gujarat and rescue operations during the Bhuj earthquake, and his ‘A’ grading in training.

A charge-sheet dated February 11, 2002 was issued to the petitioner alleging, inter alia, desertion during training, residing outside the camp without permission, misconduct during training and habitual indiscipline. The court noted that Charge No. 1 constituted the foundational charge on which the remaining charges and the penalty of removal were based, and that the charge-sheet itself recorded that the petitioner had resumed duty within about twenty days.

The petitioner’s defence, as recorded in the judgment, was that his absence was due to acute renal pain requiring hospitalisation, coupled with illness of his wife, and was supported by medical records. He contended that he had voluntarily rejoined duty and that prior permission had been granted to keep his family outside the camp, rendering the charge of unauthorised residence unsustainable.

After examining the charge-sheet, enquiry report, penalty order and statutory framework, the High Court held that desertion necessarily involves animus deserendi, that is, an intention to permanently abandon service, which stood negated by the admitted fact of voluntary resumption of duty. The court held that in the absence of such intention, the charge of desertion was legally unsustainable.

The court further found that although the respondents argued that the proceedings were intended to relate to absence without leave, the charge-sheet itself proceeded on the premise of desertion, and the respondents could not later dilute or reinterpret the charge. The court also noted that the enquiry report and penalty order failed to clearly segregate desertion from absence without leave, resulting in ambiguity affecting proportionality of punishment.

The High Court further recorded that the enquiry suffered from procedural infirmities, including non-supply of relied-upon documents and denial of effective opportunity to examine defence witnesses. The court held that medical evidence supporting the petitioner’s absence was ignored and that the findings on several charges were contrary to the record.

Holding that the charge-sheet suffered from a fundamental legal infirmity, the enquiry proceeded on a misconceived premise, and the punishment was the direct outcome of such flawed foundation, the High Court quashed the orders of removal, appeal and revision.

The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and seniority, while clarifying that he would not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the intervening period and that pay fixation and other benefits would be granted on a notional basis. The respondents were directed to carry out the necessary exercise within 60 days.

Case Title
Hans Raj Doi vs Union of India & Others

Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7778/2006

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Bench
Justice Anand Sharma

Date of Judgment
February 3, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Chobisa with Ms. Priyansha Gupta
For the respondents: Mr. Ram Singh Bhati