Discipline can’t cost humanity: Rajasthan High Court reinstates CRPF constable fired 23 years ago over medical emergency

There is no sufficient evidence on record to justify an extreme penalty, said the Rajasthan High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Court’s observations: Procedural lapses, perverse findings

• Branding a short-term absence as desertion reflects non-application of mind and colourable exercise of power.
• Subjecting the petitioner to a disciplinary enquiry on the grave and stigmatic charge of desertion is manifestly perverse, legally unsustainable, and violative of settled law.
• There is no finding that his absence was willful and without justification.
• There is no sufficient evidence on record to justify an extreme penalty.
• The enquiry suffered from serious procedural infirmities.
• The petitioner was not supplied with copies of documents relied upon by the department, despite a specific demand.
• Such an approach strikes at the very root of fair procedure and violates the principles of audi alteram partem.
• Audi alteram partem is a fundamental Latin legal maxim meaning “hear the other side” or “listen to the other side”.
• It signifies that no person should be condemned or judged without a fair opportunity to present their case, respond to evidence, and defend themselves before a decision is made.

Charges legally not sustainable

• Primary charges are not legally sustainable against the petitioner.
• The chargesheet suffered from a fundamental legal infirmity, the enquiry proceeded on a misconceived premise.
• The punishment imposed was the direct outcome of such flawed foundation.
• In the absence of any independent or credible evidence establishing misconduct attributable to the petitioner, the partial proof recorded by the enquiry officer is based on conjecture rather than evidence.
• The minor penalties already undergone by the petitioner, cannot be used to brand an employee as habitually undisciplined so as to justify imposition of harshest penalty of removal from service.
• The enquiry report was clearly based on irrational consideration and perverse as well.
• The enquiry proceedings reveal a clear denial of reasonable opportunity.
• There is an apparent and manifest legal flaws in the decision making process.
• The disciplinary authority failed to apply independent mind to the petitioner’s detailed reply and merely acted on dotted lines drawn in the findings of the enquiry officer.
• The order is bereft of reasons.
• The order does not disclose consideration of sustainability of charges, mitigating circumstances, past meritorious service, medical exigencies, or proportionality of punishment.
• The appellate and revisional authorities further compounded the illegality.
• Their orders are cryptic, mechanical and non-speaking.
• They do not deal with the grounds raised in appeal or revision, nor do they analyse the evidence or findings.
• Such orders defeat the very purpose of statutory remedies and are unsustainable in law.

Good conduct

• The weekly progress reports and training records show that the petitioner secured highest marks and maintained good conduct.
• The alleged quarrel incident admittedly occurred during the petitioner’s absence and involved his cook.
• The petitioner himself reported the incident to superior officers.

Relief granted

• Quashing all five orders, 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 has to be completed within 60 days.
• Summing up, the court cautioned disciplinary authorities against enforcing discipline “by losing sight of fairness, proportionality and humanity,” especially where medical emergencies and past meritorious service stand clearly established.

Background: Service record, charges

• 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 post-riot deployments in Gujarat after the 2002 Godhra incident and rescue and relief operations during the Bhuj earthquake.
• A chargesheet was filed on February 11, 2002 accused him of desertion during training, unauthorised 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.
• This was upheld successively in an appeal on November 8, 2002, revision on January 1, 2003 and further representations were rejected on March 21, 2003 and July 24, 2003.

Medical emergency at core

• The constable consistently maintained that his brief absence from November 17 to December 5, 2001 was due to acute renal colic, hospitalisation, and the serious illness of his wife.
• This was supported by medical records from civil and private hospitals.
• He rejoined duty voluntarily after treatment.
• The court noted that the chargesheet itself admitted that Doi returned to duty within about 20 days, which legally negated any allegation of “desertion” requiring an intention to permanently abandon service.