Telangana HC says ‘CRPF cannot be absolved of responsibility towards a member of the Force,’ orders relief to kin of constable missing since 2015

M Srikanth, a CRPF constable, went missing from June 1, 2015, while undergoing training (computer course) for rehabilitation at Group Centre, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi, after his left leg was amputated. Despite extensive efforts by both the CRPF and investigating authorities, his whereabouts remained unknown. The respondent authorities proceeded against Srikanth, declared him a deserter and passed an order on January 28, 2017, removing him from service.

In 2021, Srikanth’s father, M Appa Rao, approached the high court with a petition challenging the January 2017 order of removal from service and sought implementation of a 2013 office memorandum of the Union Government that governs benefits for missing employees. On their part, the CRPF authorities submitted that the petitioner had not lodged an FIR or complaint at his native place or obtained a report from the police that Srikanth has not been traced despite all efforts. They requested the court to direct the petitioner to lodge an FIR and obtain a police report to be produced before the respondents, along with an indemnity bond, for seeking any claim.

The question before the bench was whether Srikanth’s removal from service in an ex parte departmental proceeding after declaring him a deserter was proper in the eye of the law, and if the petitioner could be denied the service benefits of his son, who has not been traced for over 10 years, in the absence of any missing complaint lodged by the petitioner.

Went missing from his ‘regimental family’

The bench noted that Srikanth was not in the custody of the petitioner-father when he went missing, but under the control and command of the Commanding Officer, Group Centre, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi, which the court termed as “in effect in his regimental family”. The court observed that the family of the employee was obliged to file a missing report “had it been a case where in ordinary course of duty and beyond duty hours the constable had gone missing.”

Taking into consideration that records and CCTV footage of that period have been either weeded out or got erased, the court observed 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 before the Baba Haridas Nagar Police Station, Nazafgarh, New Delhi.”

While stressing that the order of removal from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law, the court observed that the respondent 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 respondent authorities to process the claim for service benefits of Srikanth, treating him as missing for the last more than 10 years. The court directed that his admissible service or pensionary benefits be disbursed in favour of the legal heirs or nominees as per the pension rules.

The writ petition was allowed in full, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.