"Desertion" Requires Intention To Abandon Duty Permanently: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Removal Of CRPF Constable Over Mischaracterised Absence

“Temporary Absence Followed By Voluntary Resumption Of Duty Cannot Constitute ‘Desertion’ Under Section 9 Of The CRPF Act”, Rajasthan High Court delivered a significant judgment protecting the rights of uniformed personnel from arbitrary disciplinary action under misconceived charges. The Court, through Justice Anand Sharma, allowed the writ petition filed by a dismissed CRPF constable and quashed the removal and subsequent appellate and revisional orders, holding them legally unsustainable.

The Court held that branding the petitioner as a "deserter" when he had voluntarily rejoined duty after a temporary absence due to medical exigency was not just factually incorrect but also contrary to the statutory framework under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and the CRPF Rules, 1955. The judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that animus deserendi—i.e., the intention to permanently abandon service—is indispensable to constitute the offence of desertion.

Court Finds Entire Disciplinary Action "Vitiated At Threshold" For Misapplying Grave Charge Of Desertion Without Fulfilling Statutory Preconditions

At the core of the legal challenge was a charge-sheet dated 11.02.2002, which labelled the petitioner a "deserter" during a training programme for his absence from 17.11.2001 to 05.12.2001. The petitioner had defended his absence as medically justified, supported by hospital records and treatment for renal colic, along with his wife’s concurrent illness.

The High Court categorically observed:

“The charge-sheet itself records that the petitioner resumed duty within about twenty days. Such an admitted fact directly negates the essential element of animus deserendi, which is the sine qua non for constituting the offence of desertion under Section 9 of the CRPF Act, 1949.” [Para 26]

The Court further rejected the respondent-authorities' contention that the terminology used in the charge-sheet was merely cosmetic and did not influence the nature of proceedings. Justice Sharma held:

“Where the charge-sheet proceeds on the premise that the delinquent has ‘deserted the Force’, the respondents cannot subsequently dilute or reinterpret the charge to suit the outcome of the enquiry.” [Para 25]

Department Ignored Mandatory Procedure Under Rule 31 For Alleged Desertion: Court Criticises "Non-Application Of Mind"

One of the pivotal legal errors identified was the failure to convene a Court of Enquiry as required under Rule 31 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which is mandatory where desertion is alleged. The Court noted:

“The procedure for ascertaining the commission of desertion or absence without leave, as prescribed under Rule 31... cannot also be ignored by the respondents.” [Para 27]

Although the disciplinary proceedings ultimately led to punishment under Section 11 (Minor Penalties) of the CRPF Act, the Court observed that the entire process had been triggered on the gravest accusation—desertion, which carries penal consequences under Section 9 and requires heightened procedural safeguards. The Court emphasised that:

“Removal from service is a major penalty ordinarily reserved for grave misconduct. Once the charge of desertion is found to be unsustainable, the proportionality of the punishment becomes indefensible.” [Para 29]

Failure To Supply Documents, Denial Of Defence Witnesses And Disregard Of Medical Evidence Amounts To Procedural Violation And Natural Justice Breach

Justice Sharma did not stop at the defective charge. He scrutinised the disciplinary enquiry itself and found it procedurally flawed and substantively perverse. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner was not supplied documents relied upon by the department and was also refused permission to summon defence witnesses.

“The petitioner was denied effective opportunity to examine defence witnesses and the Enquiry Officer unilaterally decided that examination of all witnesses was ‘not necessary’. Such an approach strikes at the very root of fair procedure and violates the principles of audi alteram partem.” [Para 40]

The Court further noted that medical evidence, showing hospitalisation and treatment during the absence period, was ignored without reasons, despite being on record:

“Absence due to bona fide medical emergency, duly supported by medical records, cannot be equated with willful misconduct either of ‘desertion’ or even of ‘wilful unauthorised absence’.” [Para 41]

Allegation Of Unauthorized Residence And Training Indiscipline Also Dismissed As Baseless

On Charge No. 2, that the petitioner resided outside the training camp without permission, the Court pointed out that the respondents themselves had granted written permission dated 20.08.2001 for the same. The Court termed the charge "patently perverse" [Para 42].

Regarding Charge No. 3, of alleged indiscipline during training, the Court noted that training records and weekly performance reports reflected "highest marks and good conduct", and the quarrel incident cited had occurred in his absence and involved his cook—not the petitioner [Para 43].

As to Charge No. 4, relating to past minor punishments, the Court declared:

“Minor penalties already undergone by the petitioner, cannot be used to brand an employee as habitually indisciplined so as to justify imposition of harshest penalty of removal from service.” [Para 44]

Punishment Of Removal "Shockingly Disproportionate", Especially Given Gallantry Awards And Commendations

Justice Sharma gave weight to the petitioner's commendable service record, including appreciations from senior officers and gallantry during sensitive deployments. He held that:

“Discipline cannot be enforced at the cost of fairness, reasonableness and humanity.” [Para 48]

The Court found that both the disciplinary and appellate/revisional orders were non-speaking, mechanical, and bereft of legal reasoning, rendering them unsustainable:

“The orders defeat the very purpose of statutory remedies and are unsustainable in law.” [Para 47]

Relief Granted: Reinstatement With Notional Benefits

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the orders of removal (27.07.2002), appellate (08.11.2002), revisional (01.01.2003 and 21.03.2003), and rejection order (24.07.2003). It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and seniority, but denied back wages.

“The benefits of pay fixation as well as other consequential service benefits shall be granted to the petitioner only on notional basis.”

Compliance has been directed within 60 days of the receipt of the judgment.

Date of Decision: 03 February 2026