Employer Not Obligated To 'Launch Manhunt Across Globe For Absconding Employees': J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal Of CRPF Constable
Emphasising that an employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee across the globe the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a constable with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who had challenged his termination from service.Trashing a contention that the Enquiry Officer has failed to follow the principles of natural justice a bench...
Emphasising that an employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee across the globe the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a constable with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who had challenged his termination from service.
Trashing a contention that the Enquiry Officer has failed to follow the principles of natural justice a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
“An employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee in the whole world. It is enough if an employer sends the communications to an absconding employee at his residential address. That is what has been done by the Enquiry Officer in the present case”.
Mohammad Shahbaz Mir was appointed as a constable with the CRPF in 1997 and posted in the 181 Battalion. He proceeded on leave from August 3, 2011, to August 30, 2011, but did not return to duty. Mir claimed that psychological disturbances and chronic marital discord caused him to overstay his leave.
Mir argued that his dismissal, issued on December 3, 2012, was in violation of natural justice principles and the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. He also contended that all communications, including the dismissal order, were in Hindi—a language he claimed not to understand.
The respondents, represented by Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhat, CGSC, countered that Mir had overstayed his leave without permission and ignored multiple requests to report for duty. They detailed the steps taken to apprehend Mir and the subsequent departmental inquiry that led to his dismissal.
Meticulously reviewing the case the court noted that Mir had overstayed his sanctioned leave starting from September 1, 2011. Despite being arrested and handed over to his battalion, he deserted the force again on September 9, 2012, the court said.
Mir cited domestic problems, including a divorce and a custody dispute, as reasons for his absence. However, the Court found no emergent issues at the time of his desertion that justified his prolonged absence.
“The petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that there were any emergent domestic issues being faced by him at the time when he actually deserted the Force”, the bench pointed.
The Court further found that the CRPF adhered to the prescribed procedure under Rule 27 (c) of the CRPF Rules as multiple communications were sent to Mir's residential address, giving him ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings.
Justice Dhar explained,
“The principles of natural justice do not operate in vacuum. When the facts are admitted, the holding of fresh enquiry and allowing opportunity of hearing to a delinquent employee would be an empty formality. Thus, from the material on record placed before this Court by the petitioner himself, it can safely be stated that he had no justification in remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty”.
The Court also dismissed Mir's claim of not understanding Hindi, noting that he had previously communicated in Hindi for leave applications and appointment orders.
In alignment with these observations the court dismissed the petition and upheld Mir's dismissal from service.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD SHAHBAZ MIR VS UNION OF INDIA.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 175