'Seema Suraksha Bal' A Central Force With Pan India Presence, Its Orders Subject To Challenge Across All High Courts: J&K High Court

These observations were made by Justice M A Chowdhary while hearing a plea of a Constable (GD) in the SSB challenging the Removal Order issued against him by respondent No.3-Commandant Training Centre Sapri SSB Himachal Pradesh, for his allegedly unauthorized absence from duty.

Petitioner contended that the removal order was in violation of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and the Rules framed thereunder. It was argued that no formal departmental inquiry was conducted, and principles of natural justice were overlooked.

Petitioner submitted that his absence from duty occurred during the turmoil in the Kashmir Valley in 2008. Citing threats to his family from anti-national elements, the petitioner had sought leave to visit them, which he claimed was not sanctioned. Unable to continue his training, the petitioner had later reported back for duty, but his rejoining was disallowed without a hearing.

Challenging his subsequent removal from service, the petitioner argued that Rule 27 of the CRPF Act, 1949, and Rules 1955 govern the imposition of punishment and necessitate a formal departmental inquiry before a major punishment like removal from service. The petitioner asserted that the impugned order wrongly invoked Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The respondents on the other hand, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction since his order of removal was passed by the Commandant Training Centre SSB at Sapri Kangra Himachal Pradesh and hence the J & K High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction in the present case.

They further argued that the petitioner had not responded to notices for rejoining and had failed to utilize the remedy of appeal before approaching the High Court.

Justice Chowdhary, in addressing the matter of territorial jurisdiction, noted that the petition was initiated in the year 2015 and had been subsequently admitted for hearing without any objection raised by the respondents at that stage. Consequently, the court emphasized that the respondents could not raise such a plea at this late stage in the proceedings.

The court added,

“Moreover, the Paramilitary Force SSB who had passed the order has a pan India presence being a Force of the Union of India, as such, the same is subject to the jurisdiction of every High Court in India including this High Court”.

Observing that the petitioner had resided within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, being a permanent resident of district Budgam, after his alleged desertion from his Unit and the removal/termination order was served upon him at his permanent address, the court maintained that the petitioner was competent to maintain his Writ Petition before the Court

While dealing with the contention of inapplicability of CCA Rules 1965 to the instant matter the bench referenced Sudhanshu Shekhar Deo vs The Union Of India & Ors 2013 of Patna High Court and recorded,

“On perusal of Rule 27 and 102 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, the court is of the opinion that by taking recourse to Rule 102 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, as quoted above, even in a case of departmental enquiry in relation to members of C.R.P.F., for fair and independent departmental enquiry, aid of Rules prescribed for imposing major penalties under C.C.S. Rules can be taken”.

While ruling that the aid of CCA Rules can be taken even in an enquiry contemplated under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, as an enabling provision to follow the procedure, the court noted,

“Even the prescribed procedure has not been followed in petitioners’ case. No structured enquiry requiring serving the articles of charge, so as to satisfy the requirement of natural justice of being heard was not provided. The respondent-Commandant, just after recording unauthorized absence and desertion at the back of the petitioner, ordered his removal from service”.

Emphasizing the absence of a presenting officer in the proceedings at hand, the bench reiterated the crucial necessity of appointing a presenting officer in cases involving the imposition of major punishments during departmental proceedings.

Consequently, the court held that the impugned order removing the petitioner from service lacked legal sustainability. and hence the order was quashed and the petitioner's dismissal from service was deemed untenable.

Court added that while the respondents would be directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner into service, they would be at liberty to hold the requisite departmental proceedings against the petitioner under the CRPF Act, 1949 and relevant rules after the petitioner had been re-assigned his duties. 

Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Najar Vs UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 300

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment