J&K&L High Court Upholds CRPF Probationer's Termination, Says Militant Attack Claim To Explain Unauthorised Absence Was Afterthought
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the termination of a probationary CRPF Constable, holding that his explanation for remaining absent from duty on the ground that militants had attacked his house was an afterthought unsupported by contemporaneous material.
Finding that the documents produced by the petitioner appeared to have been created only after his termination to justify his absence, the Court refused to interfere with the order terminating his services during probation.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, "The defence of the petitioner that he could not attend duties due to the reason that his house was attacked by the militants, also appears to be an afterthought because the documents placed on record in this behalf appear to have been manufactured with a view to create a defence."
The Court was hearing a writ petition originally filed by Shabir Ahmad Deedad, challenging the termination of his services as a Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner passed away and was substituted by his wife, Nargis Begum, who continued the proceedings.
The petitioner was appointed as a Constable (GD) in the CRPF in February 2008 after undergoing the prescribed recruitment process. According to him, he proceeded on sanctioned leave in July 2008 but was unable to rejoin duty because militants allegedly attacked his residence, injuring his father and other family members.
He claimed that owing to these extraordinary circumstances, he could not report back to his unit and later discovered that his services had been terminated with effect from 11 September 2008.
The petitioner thereafter approached the departmental authorities seeking reconsideration of the termination order and also relied upon his subsequent acquittal in FIR No. 157/2003 registered at Police Station Handwara. He contended that his absence was neither deliberate nor wilful and that the authorities had failed to appreciate both the militant attack and his acquittal while rejecting his appeal.
The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had been granted only three days' casual leave and was required to resume duty on 7 July 2008 but remained absent from 8 July 2008 onwards without authorization. Despite receipt of a registered notice directing him to report back for duty and a subsequent one-month termination notice, he failed to join service, resulting in termination under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 read with Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
Court's Observations:
The Court noted at the outset that the petitioner was admittedly a probationer when the impugned notice and termination order were issued. Referring to Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules and Rule 5(1) of the Temporary Service Rules, the Court observed that the statutory framework expressly permits termination of a probationary employee by giving one month's notice.
Justice Dhar observed,
"From a conjoint reading of Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1965 and clause (a) of the conditions of appointment of the petitioner, there is no manner of doubt in concluding that services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice during the probation period."
The Court further found that the termination notice dated 13 August 2008 had in fact been served upon the petitioner and that the acknowledgment card bearing his signatures formed part of the official record. Since the petitioner chose not to rejoin duty even during the notice period, the respondents validly exercised their power to terminate his services.
The Court observed,
"Once the original petitioner, upon receipt of notice of termination dated 13.08.2008 did not rejoin his duties within the period of notice, the respondents were well within their rights and competence to terminate his services without assigning any reason."
The High Court also held that the respondents had an additional and independent justification for terminating the petitioner's services. His appointment was expressly subject to the condition that no criminal case should be pending against him. However, FIR No. 157/2003 under Sections 307 and 148 RPC was admittedly pending and a challan had already been filed when he joined the CRPF.
Rejecting the argument that his subsequent acquittal entitled him to reinstatement, the Court observed that the acquittal was recorded only in June 2010, long after the termination order had already been passed. The Court held,
"In terms of conditions of appointment of the petitioner, his services were liable to be terminated once it came to the notice of the respondents that a criminal case was pending against him at the time of his appointment."
Turning to the petitioner's principal defence regarding the alleged militant attack, the Court found significant inconsistencies in the material produced before it. Although the petitioner claimed that the incident had occurred on 1 July 2008, the documents relied upon by him revealed that the report concerning the incident had been lodged only on 23 October 2009, more than a year later and after his services had already been terminated. Justice Dhar observed,
"The defence of the petitioner that he could not attend duties due to the reason that his house was attacked by the militants, also appears to be an afterthought because the documents placed on record in this behalf appear to have been manufactured with a view to create a defence."
Drawing an adverse inference from the chronology of events, the Court further observed,
"From the sequence of events, it can safely be inferred that the case set up by the petitioner is nothing but an afterthought which deserves to be rejected. The appellate authority is, therefore, right in rejecting the defence of the petitioner."
The Court consequently held that neither the petitioner's explanation for his prolonged unauthorized absence nor his subsequent acquittal furnished any ground to interfere with the departmental action taken strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules governing probationers.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the termination.
Case Title: Nargis Begum v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326