The High Court reaffirms Supreme Court precedents on “desertion” in uniformed services, holds procedural compliance sufficient, and upholds dismissal as proportionate—binding on subordinate courts and persuasive for other High Courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/300/2019 of Nasir Ahmad Parray vs. Union of India & Ors. |
| CNR | JKHC010061542019 |
| Date of Registration | 03-12-2019 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr Justice Shahzad Azeem |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Ms Justice Sindhu Sharma (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Bench | Hon’ble Ms Justice Sindhu Sharma and Hon’ble Mr Justice Shahzad Azeem |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Disciplinary service law under CRPF Act 1949 and CRPF Rules 1955 |
| Questions of Law | Whether procedural and natural-justice requirements were met in departmental enquiry under Section 11(1) CRPF Act 1949 and whether dismissal is a proportionate punishment for desertion. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that absence without leave beyond 60 days, with repeated notice and opportunity to be heard, qualifies as “desertion” under Rule 31. Registered-post notices and special-messenger efforts satisfy natural-justice requirements. Medical certificates showed only outdoor treatment and did not excuse non-reporting. Supreme Court precedents establish that desertion justifies dismissal and that proportionality challenges fail once procedural fairness is shown. Judicial review is limited to mala fide or perversity, which was not demonstrated. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Strict compliance with Rule 31 enquiry steps; registered-post and special-messenger notices; classification of overstaying leave as desertion; proportionality drawn from Supreme Court precedents; limited scope of Article 226 review. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant joined CRPF in 1994, went on earned leave from 27 Oct 2005 to 5 Dec 2005 and failed to rejoin on 6 Dec 2005. Multiple notices and a warrant were issued. Enquiry declared him a deserter and he was dismissed on 26 Feb 2007. Writ Petition challenging dismissal was dismissed on 15 Oct 2019; this LPA followed. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts reviewing disciplinary enquiries in uniformed forces |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that overstaying leave beyond 60 days, with refusal to respond after multiple notices and a special messenger, constitutes “desertion” under Rule 31 CRPF Rules 1955.
- Holds that registered-post notices and attempts by special messenger satisfy principles of natural justice for ex-parte departmental enquiries.
- Affirms that dismissal for desertion is proportionate; absence of indoor-treatment proof undermines medical-ground defence.
- Emphasises limited scope of judicial review under Article 226—courts will not re-weigh facts if procedural compliance is shown.
- Reinforces the binding nature of Supreme Court precedents (Datta Linga Toshatwad, Ghulam Bhat) on proportionality in disciplined-force cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellant’s failure to rejoin after expiry of sanctioned leave triggered “overstaying of leave” and enquiry under Rule 31 CRPF Rules 1955.
- Multiple notices (14 Dec, 22 Dec, 31 Dec 2005) and a warrant via SSP, Baramulla, plus a special-messenger report, established willful absence.
- Enquiry Officer appointed; appellant informed by registered post with 15-day reply windows; all went unanswered.
- Enquiry report found desertion; Commandant dismissed appellant on 26 Feb 2007 under Section 11(1) CRPF Act 1949 and Rule 27 CRPF Rules 1955.
- Medical certificates showed only outdoor treatment at Government Psychiatric Hospital, Srinagar—no indoor care to excuse absence.
- Supreme Court authority (Datta Linga Toshatwad para 8; Ghulam Mohd. Bhat paras 7, 9; Ashok Kumar Singh) holds desertion justifies dismissal and proportionality challenges fail.
- Judicial review under Article 226 confined to mala fide or perversity; none shown here.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Absence due to serious health issues supported by treatment records.
- Never informed of departmental enquiry—violation of natural justice.
- Dismissal disproportionate for overstayal of leave under Section 10(m).
Respondent (Union of India & Ors.):
- Multiple registered-post notices and special-messenger efforts proved willful default.
- Enquiry conducted in strict compliance with CRPF Act 1949 and Rules 1955; no mala fide.
- Supreme Court precedents uphold dismissal for desertion; proportionality challenge baseless.
Factual Background
Nasir Ahmad Parray joined CRPF in 1994. He was granted earned leave from 27 Oct 2005 to 5 Dec 2005 but did not return on 6 Dec 2005. Respondents issued multiple notices, a warrant, and sent a special messenger; enquiries declared him a deserter. He was dismissed on 26 Feb 2007. Writ Petition (SWP 1822/2013) challenging dismissal was dismissed on 15 Oct 2019; this Letters Patent Appeal followed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10(m), CRPF Act 1949: absenteeism without leave or overstayal is a “less heinous offence.”
- Section 11(1), CRPF Act 1949 & Rule 27 CRPF Rules 1955: empower dismissal or removal after departmental enquiry.
- Rule 31 CRPF Rules 1955: prescribes enquiry process for desertion/absence beyond 60 days, notice requirements, and declaration of deserter on enquiry findings.
- No reading down or reading in; straight application of enacted provisions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissent; Hon’ble Ms Justice Sindhu Sharma concurred with Justice Shahzad Azeem’s reasoning, affirming procedural compliance and proportionality.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural guidelines; reaffirmation of registered-post notice and special-messenger compliance as sufficient for natural justice in ex-parte departmental enquiries.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Supreme Court authority on desertion and dismissal.
Citations
- State of West Bengal v. M. R. Mondal, AIR 2001 SC 3471
- Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad, (2005) 13 SCC 709, para 8
- Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, (2005) 13 SCC 228, paras 7, 9
- State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh, (cited in Ghulam Bhat)