[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors. ... on 2 February, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:5782]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 685/2005

Sunil Kumar S/o Late Shri J.S. Yadav, aged 32 years, resident of
VPO Seehma, Tahsil Narnoul, District Mahendergarh, (Haryana)
At present posted at ISA CRPF, Mount Abu.
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary Home, Ministry of Home
New Delhi.
2. The Director General, H.Q. Director General CRPF, C.G.O.
Complex, Block No.1, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. The Additional Director General, NWZ, CRPF, Chandigarh
(U.T.).
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Chandigarh.
5. The Commandant, 124 BN C.R.P.F., Ajnala Road, Amritsar
(Punjab).
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Dheeraj Jangid, for
                                   Ms. Abhilasha Bora.
For Respondent(s)            :     None present.



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                 JUDGMENT

Reportable 02/02/2026

1. The matter pertains to the year 2005 and is listed in the

hearing category.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the punishment order dated 21.01.2003 Annex.13, appellate order 09.06.2003 Annex.14 and revisional order 22.01.2004 Annex.15 may be quashed.

ii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:25:00 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5782] (2 of 6) [CW-685/2005]

the case, may be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.

iii. Cost may be awarded."

3. Mr. Dheeraj Jangid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submits that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for

disobedience of the order of his superior vide charge-sheet dated

22.09.1998. The departmental inquiry culminated in an award of

censure dated 29.09.2000.

3.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal

against the said order, which came to be decided on 22.03.2001.

By the said order, the departmental inquiry and the punishment

were set aside and a de novo inquiry was directed, primarily on

the ground that the petitioner had sought opportunity to cross-

examine certain witnesses.

3.2. Thereafter, a fresh charge-sheet dated 19.04.2001 was

issued. The subsequent inquiry culminated in a punishment order

imposing stoppage of two grade increments for a period of two

years with cumulative effect under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve

Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of

1955").

3.3. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner preferred an

appeal, wherein the punishment was modified from stoppage of

two grade increments to stoppage of one grade increment with

cumulative effect vide order dated 09.06.2003. The revision

petition preferred thereafter was dismissed vide order dated

22.01.2004.

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:25:00 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5782] (3 of 6) [CW-685/2005]

3.4. Learned counsel submits that Rule 28 of the Rules of 1955

expressly restricts the right of appeal in respect of certain

punishments enumerated under Rule 27. It is pointed out that

censure falls under Serial No. 9 of the Table in Rule 27. In view of

the statutory scheme contained in Rule 28(b), the appeal

preferred by the petitioner against such punishments was not

maintainable, and the respondents ought to have dismissed it in

limine. It is thus contended that the very entertainment of the

appeal, and the consequential revisional proceedings, are without

jurisdiction. Rule 27 & Rule 28(b) of the Rules of 1955 are

reproduced hereunder:

"Rule 27:

27.Procedure for the award of punishments .--(a) [The punishments shown as items 1 to 11 in column 2 of the table] below may be inflicted or non--Gazetted Officers and men of the various ranks shown in each of the headings of columns 3 to 6, by the authorities named below such headings under the conditions mentioned in column 7.

SI. Punishment Subedar Sub- Others Consts. & Remarks No (ins- Inspector except enrolled pector) Const. & followers enrolled followers

1 Dismissal or removal DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. To be from the Force inflicted after formal departme ntal enquiry

2. Reduction to a lower DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.

time-scale of pay or service

3. Reduction to a lower DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.

stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period

4. Compulsory retirement DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. To be inflicted 5 Fine of any amount not DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. after exceeding one month's formal pay and allowances departme

6. Confinement in the - - - Comdt. ntal Quarter Guard enquiry exceeding seven days but more than twenty-

eight days with or without punishment drill or extra guard fatigue or other duty

7. Stoppage of increment DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:25:00 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5782] (4 of 6) [CW-685/2005]

8. Removal from any office DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. May be of distinction or special inflicted emolument in the Force without a formal departme ntal enquiry

9. Censure Comdt. Comdt. A. Comdt. A. Comdt.

                                                                     Or     Coy Or    Coy
                                                                     Comdr.     Comdr.
10.   Confinement to quarter        -                   -            -         Comdt.
      Guard for not more than seven
      days with or
      without punishment or
      extra guard fatigue or
      other duty
11    Confinement to quarters               -           -            -         Comdt.
      lines, camp, fatigue
      duties, etc., for a term
      not exceeding one
      month




       Rule 28:

"28. Appeal.- (b) No appeal shall lie against an order by the competent authority inflicting any of the punishments mentioned in---

(1) [Serial Nos. 8 to 11 of the Table in rule 27;]

(2) Clauses (a) , (b) and (c) of section 13;

(3) Against an order discharging recruit before the termination of his period of training"

3.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the right of appeal is

purely statutory in nature and, in the absence of an enabling

provision, no appellate authority could have exercised such

jurisdiction. Consequently, all proceedings flowing from such an

appeal are liable to be set aside.

4. Despite the matter being called twice, none appears on

behalf of the respondents to assist this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record along with the relevant statutory

provisions.

6. This Court finds that the statutory scheme contained in Rules

27 and 28(b) of the Rules of 1955 unequivocally bars the

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:25:00 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5782] (5 of 6) [CW-685/2005]

maintainability of an appeal against punishments falling under

Serial Nos. 8 to 11 of the Table appended to Rule 27, which

expressly includes the punishment of censure at Serial No. 9.

Once the statute itself imposes a clear prohibition on such

appellate remedy, the appellate authority could not have assumed

jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal preferred by the

petitioner.

6.1. It is a settled principle of law that the right of appeal is

neither inherent nor founded in equity; it is purely a statutory

creation and can be exercised only when expressly conferred by

the statute. In the absence of any statutory provision enabling

such a remedy, the assumption of appellate jurisdiction is

rendered ex facie without authority of law.

6.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare v.

Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [(2010) 4

SCC 772, decided on 12.04.2010] has authoritatively held that

courts cannot create or assume a right of appeal by interpretative

process. The relevant observation read as under:

"29. By referring to the aforesaid schemes under different

statutes, this Court wants to underline that the right of

appeal, being always a creature of a statute, its nature,

ambit and width has to be determined from the statute

itself. When the language of the statute regarding the

nature of the order from which right of appeal has been

conferred is clear, no statutory interpretation is

warranted either to widen or restrict the same."

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:25:00 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5782] (6 of 6) [CW-685/2005]

6.3. In the present case, since the appeal itself was not

maintainable in view of the statutory bar, the appellate