Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ramraj Meena vs Union Of India And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 7486 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7486 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 10 December, 2021

Rajasthan High Court
Ramraj Meena vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5221/2018

No. 970250021 Sep/driver Ramraj Meena Son Of Shri Asha Ram
Meena, Resident Of Village Chakri, Post Chakri, Police Station,
Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
       Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.     The    Director   General,        Central       Reserve    Police   Force
       (CRPF), CGO Complex, New Delhi.
3.     The Inspector General Of Police, Central Reserve Police
       Force (CRPF), Rajasthan Sector, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
4.     The Commandant 40 Battalion, Central Reserve Police
       Force (CRPF), 56 APO.
5.     D.I.G. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Range Office,
       Group Centre, Ajmer.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav, Advocate

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

10/12/2021

The petitioner who was serving as Sep/driver in the

Central Reserve Police Force (for short "the CRPF") remained

absent from his duties and was granted sanctioned leave from

21.08.2013 to 19.09.2013. Thereafter, he was required to report

on 20.09.2013 but he did not do so and despite several notices

remained absent. In the circumstances, the departmental inquiry

was initiated against him in which too, the petitioner despite

service of several notices, neither participated nor submit any

(2 of 3) [CW-5221/2018]

written or oral submissions. In the event, the Disciplinary

Authority reached to the conclusion that it was the case of

negligence and indiscipline in duty and, therefore, the petitioner

was dismissed from service.

Against the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the

Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal which

was also dismissed and revision thereof was also dismissed.

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has

preferred the present petition on the sole ground that the charge-

sheet to the petitioner was issued under Section 11 (1) of the

CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules of 1955 and

the punishment of dismissal from service which has been imposed

being a major punishment cannot be imposed in terms of Section

11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949.

I have gone through the material available on record

and also the provisions as relied upon by the counsel for the

petitioner.

Section 11 of the CRPF Act of 1949 is a provision which

talks of an additional punishment in addition of suspension or

dismissal which cannot be interpreted to mean that under Section

11, no major punishment can be granted.

So far as Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules of 1955 is

concerned, it specifically talks of the categories of punishments

and the procedures for award of such punishments.

A perusal of Section 11 as well as Rule 27 clarifies that

the same specifically provides for dismissal or suspension and the

same punishment has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority

in the present matter which cannot be said to be invalid.

(3 of 3) [CW-5221/2018]

Moresoever, the complete record and the material

available proves that no defence whatsoever had been submitted

by the petitioner during the disciplinary proceedings as to why he

was absent from his duty during the relevant period. In the

circumstances, the findings as reached to by the Disciplinary

Authority cannot be termed to be invalid or unjust.

Learned counsel has relied upon the order dated

02.03.2021 passed by this Court in the case of CT Sajjan Singh

Vs. The Union of India and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

1206/2010.

The same was a matter where there were sufficient and

reasonable grounds and explanations on record pertaining to the

absence of the employee from duty. Even otherwise, the said

judgment do not indicate that no major punishment can be

granted in terms of provision of Section 11, as suggested by the

counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the above observations, this Court finds no

ground to interfere with the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the

Disciplinary Authority. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands

dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J

Mohit24

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter