CRPF Rules | Essential To Establish Actual Service Of Notice To Delinquent Personnel Before Ordering Dismissal From Force: J&K High Court

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani while hearing the matter, noted, "The fundamental principles of natural justice cannot be compromised. It is essential that the procedural rules are strictly followed to ensure fairness in disciplinary actions. Without proper service of notices, the delinquent personnel cannot defend themselves, leading to a miscarriage of justice.”

The case revolved around the termination of a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), which was challenged by the petitioner due to alleged non-service of mandatory notices required for departmental enquiry.

The constable had argued that he was not properly served with show cause notices or departmental enquiry notices. Despite the respondents' claim that multiple notices were sent via registered post, the court observed that they had failed to provide proof of actual service.

The constable had also filed an appeal against his order of dismissal, which was rejected. Following this, he filed a revision petition, which was also rejected. Both the appellate and revisional authorities had upheld his dismissal despite his claims of procedural lapses.

Justice Wani observed that there was no evidence on record proving the constable had received any notice. He cited an inter-departmental communication admitting the lack of proof of delivery. The communication noted that various reports and orders were sent to the constable's home address without confirmation of receipt.

The court emphasized that mere communication was insufficient; the disciplinary authority needed to confirm the actual receipt of the charge sheet.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgement in Union of India and others vs. Dinanath Shataram Karekar & Ors, which held that the actual service of a charge sheet is essential for participation in disciplinary proceedings, Justice Wani reiterated, "where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a chargesheet, its actual service is essential as the person to whom the chargesheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings."

Consequently, the dismissal order and the appellate and revisional orders were quashed. The respondents were given the liberty to conduct a fresh departmental enquiry under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, within three months and ordered to reinstate the constable for this purpose.

The court also ordered that if the respondents failed to conduct the enquiry within the stipulated time, they would forfeit this liberty, and the constable would be deemed in service and entitled to all service benefits, excluding salary for the period he was out of service.

Case Title: JAVAID AHMAD KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 201

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment