Rajasthan High Court Holds That Short Absence Is Not Desertion: CRPF Constable Reinstated

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has delivered an important judgment clarifying the legal distinction between desertion and unauthorised absence in disciplined forces. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7778/2006, the Court set aside the removal of a CRPF constable who had been wrongly treated as a deserter for a short period of absence. The judgment reaffirms that temporary absence, followed by voluntary rejoining of duty, does not amount to desertion under the CRPF Act, 1949 

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force in 1995 and had a strong service record. During his tenure, he was repeatedly appreciated for his performance, including sensitive deployments during post-riot duties in Gujarat and rescue and relief operations during the Bhuj earthquake. Despite this, a charge-sheet was issued against him in 2002 alleging desertion from training, unauthorised stay outside the camp, misconduct during training, and habitual indiscipline. Based on these allegations, the disciplinary authority imposed the extreme penalty of removal from service, which was later upheld in appeal and revision.

The core issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner’s absence for about twenty days, which was supported by medical evidence and followed by voluntary resumption of duty, could legally be treated as desertion. The Court examined the scheme of the CRPF Act, 1949, particularly Sections 9 and 10, and observed that the law makes a clear distinction between desertion and absence without leave. Desertion is classified as a more heinous offence and requires animus deserendi, meaning a deliberate and permanent intention to abandon service. Absence without leave, on the other hand, is a lesser offence and does not automatically become desertion.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet itself admitted that the petitioner rejoined duty on his own within a short period. This admitted fact completely negated any intention to permanently abandon service. The Court held that once voluntary rejoining is established, the essential ingredient of desertion is missing, rendering the charge legally unsustainable. Branding such a short absence as desertion was held to be a clear case of non-application of mind.

The High Court also found serious procedural lapses in the departmental enquiry. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner was not supplied with relied-upon documents, and he was denied an effective opportunity to examine defence witnesses. The Enquiry Officer ignored unimpeachable medical records showing that the petitioner was suffering from acute renal pain and had undergone hospital treatment during the relevant period. The illness of his wife was also supported by documentary evidence, yet these mitigating circumstances were brushed aside without reasons.

Further, the allegation that the petitioner stayed outside the camp without permission was found to be completely false, as the respondents’ own records showed that written permission had been granted to him earlier. The charge relating to misconduct during training was also unsupported by evidence, as training records reflected good conduct and high performance. The Court observed that earlier minor punishments could not be used to label the petitioner as habitually indisciplined so as to justify removal from service.

The High Court strongly criticised the appellate and revisional authorities for passing cryptic and non-speaking orders. It held that statutory remedies lose their purpose if authorities fail to apply independent mind and merely endorse earlier decisions mechanically. The punishment of removal from service was held to be shockingly disproportionate, especially when imposed on a constable with a proven record of dedication and gallantry, and where the alleged misconduct arose largely from medical exigencies.

Ultimately, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the removal order along with all consequential appellate and revisional orders. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and seniority. However, the Court limited the relief to notional benefits and denied actual back wages for the intervening period. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within sixty days from receipt of the judgment.

This judgment is significant for service jurisprudence in uniformed forces. It reinforces that every unauthorised absence is not desertion, that intention to permanently abandon service is the decisive factor, and that disciplinary authorities must strictly follow statutory safeguards. The ruling serves as a reminder that while discipline is vital, it cannot be enforced at the cost of fairness, proportionality, and the rule of law.

Advocate Bhuvnesh Kumar Goyal