Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Singh vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
1 WA-1803-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1803 of 2023
ARVIND SINGH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.C Bagadia, Senior Advocate assisted by Shir Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar and
Shri Rohit Saboo - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave - Deputy Solicitor General through VC for the respondent No.1.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Mittal - Advocate for the respondent Nos.2,3&4.
Heard on : 28/8/2025.
Pronounced on : 1/9/2025.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present intra Court appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order
dated 25/9/2023 passed in W.P No.4738/2010 by which the writ petition filed by
the petitioner(appellant in the present case) has been dismissed and the dismissal
order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the orders passed by the
Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authorities have been affirmed.
2. The appellant is an ex-constable of CRPF and the case of the appellant is
that he has overstayed his leave period therefore, ex-parte D.E. was conducted and
after completion of D.E. he was declared as absconder and the appellant was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
2 WA-1803-2023
dismissed from his service by the respondent. The orders passed by the
respondent has been confirmed by the writ court.
3. Facts of the present case succinctly stated are that the appellant is a
permanent resident of Village Tok, Post Office - Amilkoni, District - Rewa. The
appellant was appointed on the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF) in the year 2007 and he was posted in 156 Battalion. He was sanctioned
with earned leave w.e.f. 09.02.2007 to 09.04.2007. He was required to report to
the office back on 10.04.2007 but he did not report to the duty. Since, he was
absconding, therefore, the department directed for issuance of warrant of arrest
through CJM, Rewa. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued an arrest
warrant on 18.06.2007 through Superintendent of Police, Rewa but the appellant
could not be arrested. Vide order dated 27.09.2007, he was declared absconder
despite that he did not report in the duty. Vide Memorandum No.P - VIII -
11/2007 - 156 - EC - II dated 13.11.2007, a decision was taken to initiate a
charge-sheet to him. The charge-sheet was sent by a registered post to his
residential address available in the service records, with a direction to submit a
reply within 10 days. The appellant did not submit any reply, therefore, vide order
dated 04.12.2007, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry against
him. The Enquiry Officer sent two letters to him dated 13.12.2007 and 29.12.2007
calling upon him to participate in the enquiry, but neither he appeared nor sent
any reply, therefore, the Enquiry Officer initiated an ex parte enquiry against him.
After completing the enquiry, an Enquiry Report dated 19.01.2008 was submitted
before the disciplinary authority. In enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer found the
sole charge of absenteeism proved against him. The disciplinary authority i.e.
Commandant, 156 Battalion vide letter dated 25.02.2008 sent the enquiry report to
the appellant's residential address with a show-cause notice to submit a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
3 WA-1803-2023
reply/objection within 15 days. Since, the appellant did not submit any
representation/reply, vide order dated 15.04.2008, punishment order of dismissal
from service was passed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant
preferred an appeal as well as revision on the ground that on 09.02.2007 after
taking the leave, he came to his hometown and fell ill on 29.03.2007. Since no
treatment was available there, therefore, he went to the parental house of his wife
in Katni. According to him, from time to time he informed the Commandant, 156
Battalion about his illness. The appellate as well as revisional authority have held
that the appellant ought to have sent the letter by way of registered post. The
letters/notices sent by the Battalion were returned undelivered as he was not found
residing on the said address. The appellant did not inform the Department about
his new address. The appellant did not inform his co-employee about his illness
also who could have informed the Commandant. After one year of his absence, the
termination order was passed. If he was ill, he ought to have reported to nearest
group hospital or CRPF Battalion. No treatment, prescription or sheets of District
Medical Hospital have been produced, therefore, such a long absence without any
medical treatment in the hospital has not been accepted by the appellate as well as
revisional authorities and dismissed the appeal and revision. Being aggrieved by
the orders of the aforesaid authorities, the appellant filed W.P No.4738/2010 and
the same was dismissed.
4. Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was sending all the
communications to the Commandant, 156 Battalion at Pahalgam (J&K) address
and the Battalion made a communication to the address written in the service
book. Thereafter, the Battalion moved from Pahalgam to Assam and the appellant
shifted from Rewa to Katni, therefore, there was a communication gap and the
letters sent by the appellant were not received by the Commandant and the notices
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
4 WA-1803-2023
sent by the Commandant were not received by the appellant. The appellant duly
submitted medical documents to the respondents, but all have wrongly been
rejected. The appellant is not having any source of income to support his wife and
children. He has submitted a mercy petition also, but the same has not been
considered. Except overstaying the sanctioned leave, there is no adverse service
record of the appellant. By way of rejoinder, he has filed documents relating to his
treatment duly issued by authorized Government Medical Officer. Therefore, one
more opportunity be given to the appellantto serve the organization. Counsel for
the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of
Krushnakant B. Parmar v/s Union of India & Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC
178, in which the Apex Court has held that the disciplinary authority as well as
appellate authority ought to have considered whether the absence of the appellant
was willful or not and directed for reinstatement with 50% backwages. Reliance
has also been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of State (Union of
India) v/s Ram Saran reported in 2003 AIR SCW 6585 , in which in the matter of
member of CRPF who overstayed the period of leave, only the punishment was
modified and the fine of two months' pay has been imposed. Reliance has also
been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case Shantiniketan Hindi Primary
School v/s Pal Hariram Ramvtar & Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 717 , wherein
in case of over staying the leave, the termination has been modified to the
reinstatement with 50% backwages.
5. The respondents filed a reply by submitting that the being the member of
disciplinary force, the appellant acted in violation of provision of Section 11(1) of
the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. He failed to report on duty after
expiry of sanctioned leave. He is out of employment since 2008 i.e. 15 years and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
5 WA-1803-2023
now he is touching the age of superannuation, hence, he cannot be reinstated into
the service. The disciplinary authority, appellant authority as well as revisional
authority all have considered the conduct of the appellant and found it
unpardonable. The scope of interference by the High Court in the matter of
disciplinary proceeding and punishment is very limited. By following the due
process of law, the appellant was declared absconder, and thereafter, the
departmental enquiry was conducted. At every stage, he was sent notices, but he
did not respond to anyone. If he had left his residential place, he could have
informed the postal authority to divert the letters to his new address. He has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad reported in 2005 (13) SCC 709 and orders
passed by this Court in the case of Badshah Singh vs. State of M.P reported in
(2012) 4 MPLJ 166 and in the case of Sachulal vs. Union of India in W.A
No.702/2023 decided on 06/09/2023. Hence, no interference is liable to be called
for.
6. The services of the appellant is governed by the Central Reserve Police
Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1949") and the Rules
framed therein called the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955( hereinafter to
be referred as "the Rules, 1955"). The offences and punishment are contained in
Rule 9, 10 & 11 of the Act, 1949. Rule 10 engraves that :-
"Less heinous offences.--Every member of the force
who --
(a) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(b) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(c) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(d) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(e) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(f) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(g) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
6 WA-1803-2023
(h) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(i) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(j) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(k) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(l) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(m)absents himself without leave, or without sufficient
cause overstays leave granted to him; or
(n) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(o) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(p) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three
months' pay, or with both."
7. Thus, the absence wihout leave or overstay of leave without sufficient
cause is a misconduct. The procedure for conducting for enquiry for awarding
punishment is prescribed under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1955.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that an exparte departmental
enquiry was proceeded against the appellant. All notices sent by the respondents
were sent to his interior village of District Rewa which were not received by him
as he had already shifted from Rewa to Katni to her in-law house for treatment. He
had sent the intimation about the illness and request for extension of leave through
UPC. His unit was also shifted from J&K to Assam which was not within his
knowledge. After coming to know about the termination order, he filed all these
documents before the appellate and revisional authorities but they doubted the
aforesaid documents without any verification. He argued that in the case of
Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), the Supreme Court held that every absence is not
'wilful absence' for constituting 'misconduct' for punishment. He relied on para 17,
18 of the said judgment. He further argued that the respondents have failed to
discharge the burden to prove that the absence of the appellant was wilful. The
appellate and Revisional authority did not consider the aforesaid documents on
flimsy grounds.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
7 WA-1803-2023
9. Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant had
remained absent for long period of 372 days. He was initially granted leave for
only for 60 days and he ought to have returned back immediately after expiry of
the said period on 10/4/2007. He did not send any intimation regarding shifting
from Rewa to Katni. The enquiry has been conducted as per the provisions of the
Act and the Rules. The respondents have proved that the appellant had remained
unauthorisedly wilful absent from duty for a long period. He referred paras 14 of
the said judgment to contend that the absent if it is wilful then it amounts to
misconduct as per the provisions of the Act. The scope of interference in a
departmental enquiry is very limited. The Court can only examine the decision
making process and not the decision by the respondents. The punishment awarded
to the appellant is not disproportionate and shocking to the conscience as the
appellant was member of armed forces. Hence, no interference is called for.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is pellucid from the facts
that the applications for extension of leave on medical ground were filed before
the appellate and the Revisional authorities. They did not consider the aforesaid
letters and documents for the following reasons which are enumerated in
Annexure A-3/order passed by I.G:-
क) उसके ारा बटा० को अपने ाथना प जनके तहत अपनी
वमार क सूचना 156 बटा० द गई थी वह प यू०पी०सी० के
मा यम से भेजे गये थे जब क उसे पंजीकृ त डाक के मा यम से
सूिचत करना चा हए था। य द उसने पंजीकृ त डाक से प ाचार
कया होता तो पो ट आ फस ारा या तो डाक वापस भेज द जाती
या बटा० के नये पते पर भेज द जाती ।
ख) बटा० ारा उसके घर पर भेजे गये कागजात इस रमाक के
साथ वापस भेजे जा रहे थे क वह वतमान म उस पते पर नह रह
रहा है । यािचकाकता को अपना गृह नगर छोड़ने से पहले वहाँ पर
पो ट आ फस म अपने प ाचार का पता दे कर जाना चा हए था
य क उसे ात था क बटा० से उसके पते पर अव य ह प ाचार
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
8 WA-1803-2023
कया जायेगा। फर उसके घर वालो ने तो उसको यह सूिचत कया
ह होगा क वभाग से बार बार उसके िलए प आ रहे है ।
ग) जब उसके कथन अनुसार उसके ारा भेजे गये ाथना प का
बटा० से कोई जबाव नह ं िमल पाया था तो उसे अपने कसी
सहकम से स पक करके बटा० का पता ात करके कमांडे ट को
अपनी बीमार के वषय म सूिचत करना चा हए था व फोन पर भी
कमांडे ट से संपक करना चा हए था। अ यथा बटा० म रपोट
करनी चा हए थी। कमाड ट -156 बटा० ारा उसक अनुप थित
क ितिथ से लगभग 1 वष बाद सेवा से वखा तगी का आदे श जार
कया गया था। य द वह वा तव म बीमार था तो उसे अपने ईलाज
हे तु नजद क के० र०पु०बल क बटा० या ुप के अ पताल म
रपोट करनी चा हए थी य क येक कािमक को इतना तो ात
होता ह है क येक ुप के एवं बटा० म मु त िच क सा
सु वधा उपल ध होती है ।
घ) यािचकाकता से उसक अपील के साथ जो द तावेज ा हुए
थे उनके अनुसार उसके ारा जला िच क सालय कटनी के
डा टर से उसके घर पर / लिनक म अपना इलाज करवाया गया
जब क उसे जला अ पताल म जाकर अपना ईलाज करवाना
चा हए था। इसके अलावा उसने केवल डा टर ारा िलखी पच एवं
माण प क ितयाँ अपील के साथ भेजी व दवाईय के बल
इ या द नह भेजे गये।
च) यािचकाकता दनांक 29/03/07 से 15/12/08 तक एक ह
डा टर के पास अपना ईलाज करवाता रहा व अ पताल म भत भी
नह ं रहा। य द यािचकाकता वा तव म बीमार था तो उसे
के रपुबल के कसी नजद क अ पताल म इलाज हे तु रपोट करनी
चा हए थी। इसके अलावा इतने ल बे समय तक उसक थित म
सुधार नह हो रहा था तो डा टर ारा उसे कसी उ च सं थान हे तु
रे फर कया जाना चा हए था। कािमक ारा कसी कार क जाँच /
टे ट इ या द के कागजात भी संल न नह कये गये है ।
उ से प है क यािचकाकता ारा वभाग को गुमराह करने का
यास कया गया। उसके ारा अपनी यािचका म कोई नया त य
या ठोस सा य तुत नह गया है जसके आधार पर
अनुशासिनक ािधकार एवं अपीलीय ािधकार ारा जार म
कसी कार के ह त ेप करने क आव यकता तीत हो।
11. In regard to the reasoning at "क" we confronted the counsel for the
respondent that Is there any Rule or circular in the department requiring a person
to send the communication and the documents only through registered post and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
9 WA-1803-2023
also whether there is any rule requiring an employee on leave to send the
intimation of temporary shifting while on leave.
12. Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no such rule or
circular in the department requiring an employee to send the
application/documents only through registered post. He further submitted that
there is also no such rule or circular for an employee to send intimation regarding
shifting while on leave.
13. Thus, we find that the reasoning given in "क" & "ख" in annexure P-3 is
not in conformity with the Rules. The Appellate Authority ought to have
considered the same but he did not consider them only on the ground that they
were sent by UPC and not by registered post and further stating that the employee
was under obligation to give the address on shifting, though there is no such rule
or circular. The other reasonings mentioned in "ग","घ" & "च" are based on only
whims and conjectures of the authority. In concluding para of the order/Annexure
A-3, he has drawn the inference that the employee made an attempt to mislead the
department.
14. In the writ petition in para 5.2 he made specific averment that the
aforesaid information was sent to the respondents. Para 5.2 & 5.3 are reproduced
as under:-
5.2. That, in leave period itself which was completed on
09.04.2007 the petitioner is seriously ill on 29.03.2007 and
sent an intimation to the Respondent No. 4 on 30.03.2007
about his illness subsequently he shifted at his in large house
at Katni in pursuance of some treatment and left is own
house at Village Tok in Distt. Rewa. That reputed intimation
were sent by the petitioner to the Respondent Authority
about his illness and change of his address but no
correspondence were made by the authority at Katni. Where
the petitioner are continuously leaving with his in large and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
10 WA-1803-2023
obtaining treatment.
5.3 That, petitioner sent several letters about his illness and
change of his address from time to time and also seeking
permission to extend the leave periods through registered
A.D. but no response were given by the authorities. The
bunch of applications and correspondence with the
department are annexed herewith as Annexure P/4.
15. The respondents in the reply made general denial of the aforesaid
averments. The appellant filed rejoinder and filed the documents which were sent
to the respondents through UPC and UPC certificate contains the seal and
signature. The aforesaid documents were not considered merely on the ground that
they were sent by UPC and adverse inference was drawn. The aforesaid
documents were doubted by the appellate Authority without giving opportunity to
the appellant to prove them, we are of the view that the appellate Authority ought
to have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to afford opportunity of
hearing to the appellant in order to prove the charge of 'wilful absence'. We are
not oblivious to the scope of interference in a departmental enquiry, the law
relating to scope of interference in a departmental enquiry is well settled by the
Supreme Court in a the large number of cases. In the case of State of Karnataka
vs. N. Gangaraj reported in 2020 (3) SCC 423 it has been held that the scope of
interference is limited in the cases of departmental enquiry proceedings and the
judicial interference can only be made in the cases where judicial error or malafide
on the part of the authority can be shown by the employee. However, in the
present case we find that the enquiry was proceeded exparte and the appellant was
punished on the ground of 'wilful absence' from duty. The appellant filed
documents relating to request for extension of leave on medical ground alongwith
the reply and medical documents through UPC but the said documents were not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24383
11 WA-1803-2023
considered by the Appellate and Revisional Authority on the grounds that the
appellant ought to have informed about the "shifting of place from home district
to another" and that "he did not send the documents through registered post". Both
are admittedly not required under any Rule or circular of the department. The
other reasons mentioned in the order passed by the Appellate Authority are also
based on surmises and conjectures without there being any Rule or circular in that
regard. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in order to ascertain that
whether the absence of the appellant was wilful or not, the enquiry has to be made
and hence the impugned order dated 25/9/2023 passed in W.P No.4738/2010 and
orders of the appellate authority and disciplinary authority are set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to decide the case of the
appellant from the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet to the appellant and
thereafter to proceed in accordance with the law. It is expected that the
disciplinary authority shall make all endeavour to conclude the enquiry
expeditiously as early as possible within period of 6 months from the date of filing
of the copy of the order passed today. Since, we have interfered in the matter on
procedural ground and the matter is remanded, therefore, we are not directing for
reinstatement of services of the appellant.
16. With the aforesaid, present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
