CCS Rules Cannot Be Applied To CRPF Constables Unless CRPF Rules Are Silent On A Specific Matter: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while reiterating that the service conditions of a CRPF Constable (probationer) are governed by the CRPF Rules 1955 has also emphasised that the Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules can only be applied if the CRPF Rules do not explicitly address a specific issue.

If a case is already covered by the CRPF Rules, there is no need to refer to the General Rules like the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, it explained.

The observations were made by Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Moksha Kazmi Khajuria while hearing an appeal against a writ court judgment which had allowed the petition filed by the Respondent/constable and quashed his termination notice and order issued by the DIGP, ATC, CRPF, Bhopal.

Brief facts of the case are that the constable (respondent herein) was temporarily appointed in the CRPF in June 2011. However, due to health issues, he had to leave the training camp and seek medical care. He claimed that despite attempting to resume his duties on two occasions, he was not allowed to do so and subsequently received the termination notice and order. The constable argued that his absence was due to health problems and not deliberate desertion.

In response to the writ petition, the State (appellant herein) raised preliminary objections, including the availability of alternative remedies and the repeated desertion by the constable. They argued that the termination was justified under the applicable rules.

The writ court, while allowing the petition, held that the termination notice and order were quashed, and the constable was directed to be reinstated. However, the court emphasized that the authorities could still initiate proceedings against him in accordance with the CRPF Act and rules.

Assailing the writ court judgment the appellants argued that the court overlooked important factors as the respondent had only challenged the termination notice and not the subsequent order that removed their name from CRPF. The appellants also submitted that the respondent did not challenge the dismissal of their appeal against the termination notice.

The appellants further argued that the respondent was still on probation and that Rule 5 of the CCS Temporary Service Rules, 1965 applies to employees of CRPF. They asserted that the notice and termination order were issued correctly under the applicable rules. The services of temporary employees in CRPF are governed by both CRPF Rules 1955 and CCS 1965 and as such the appellant-Department cannot be said to have passed the order of termination by application of a wrong Rule, they argued.

Adjudicating upon the matter the court noted that the writ court had accepted the writ petition of the respondent on the ground that the appellants had resorted to and pressed into service the rules which were not applicable to the instant case.

After examining Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 and Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the bench clarified that the respondent, as a CRPF Constable on probation, was subject to the CRPF Rules 1955 regarding their service conditions. The CCS Rules could have only be applied when the CRPF Rules are silent on a specific matter.

"The exigency, as has occasioned in the present case, was very much covered by the CRPF Rules 1955, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellants to have pressed into service the General Rules i.e., CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, as the said rules are only supplementing and or providing an aid to the special set of rules-CRPF Rules only where the said Special Set of Rules are silent about a particular service exigency", the bench reasoned.

Elaborating further on the matter the bench observed that Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules 1955 unambiguously, reveals that termination of a CRPF Constable was governed by such Rule providing that a probationer can be terminated within a period of three years service on one month’s notice by the appointing authority, therefore and hence there was no justification for the appellants to have pressed into service the general law i.e., the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965.

In view of the said legal position the impugned judgment was maintained and the instant appeal was dismissed along with connected CMs.

Case Title: Union Of India Vs Altaf Ahmad Mir.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 169

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment