Wrong Charge Strikes At Root Of Disciplinary Action: Rajasthan High Court Reinstates CRPF Constable

The Rajasthan High Court has held that while the form of the charge sheet overrides the substance but when its foundation itself is based on a wrong charge, the State cannot subsequently dilute or reinterpret the charge to suit the outcome of the enquiry. While setting aside the suspension of the petitioner-constable, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the disciplinary authority has to classify the misconduct correctly before proceedings to punishment, otherwise the entire action becomes arbitrary. The Court was hearing a challenge against the order of suspension of the petitioner who was working as a constable with CRPF and was awarded with multiple certificates for commendable performance. A charge sheet was issued to him with four charges, where the primary allegation was of desertion from the force during training. It was the case of the petitioner that firstly his absence was owing to renal pain due to kidney stones, and furthermore, the charge sheet in itself was erroneous because of the charge of “desertion”. It was argued that the petitioner resumed duty voluntarily after 20 days of absence, while the offence of “desertion” under the CRPF Act, 1949 reflected a deliberate and permanent intention to abandon the service, carrying the highest form of punishment which was suspension. Hence, it was argued that the presumption of the petitioner being a deserter was erroneous, without any supporting facts, and since the proceedings were also carried on based on this flawed assumption, the charge sheet and consequential proceedings were unsustainable in law. On the contrary, it was submitted by the State that merely using the word “deserter” in the charge sheet did not vitiate the charge sheet or the proceedings, because substance prevailed over form. It was submitted that when the charge-sheet was read holistically, the real intention was to charge the petitioner for “absence without leave” and not “desertion”. The proceedings were also conducted for that charge, and not “desertion” that resulted in punishment under Section 11 of the CRPF Act. After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected the argument put forth by the State and held, “The submission of the respondents that the use of the term “deserter” is inconsequential and that the proceedings must be read as relating to absence without leave cannot be accepted… while form cannot override substance, the nature of the charge determines the standard of proof, procedural safeguards and proportionality of punishment. Where the charge-sheet itself proceeds on the premise hat the delinquent has “deserted the Force”, the respondents cannot subsequently dilute or reinterpret the charge to suit the outcome of the enquiry.”Further, the Court observed that the enquiry report and the penalty order did not clearly segregate between the alleged misconduct of “desertion” and “absence without leave”, reflecting non-application of mind to the statutory distinction between the two. It was held that such distinction was significant in a disciplined force since gravity of misconduct directly influenced the nature of punishment. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had voluntary resumed duty after 20 days, and opined that this negated an essential element of “desertion” i.e. intention to desert. Further, it was observed that branding such short-term absence as desertion reflected non-application of mind and colourable exercise of power. It was held that subjecting the petitioner to a disciplinary enquiry for such a grave and stigmatic charge was manifestly perverse and legally unsustainable. The Court stated that the charge sheet suffered from fundamental legal infirmity, the enquiry proceeded on a misconceived premises, and the punishment was direct outcome of such a flawed foundation. “Further, the punishment of removal from service, imposed on a constable with a proven record of gallantry, dedication and appreciation, for alleged misconduct arising largely out of medical exigencies, is wholly disproportionate. Discipline cannot be enforced at the cost of fairness, reasonableness and humanity.”Accordingly, the order was set aside, and the State was directed to reinstate the petitioner. Title: Hans Raj v Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 47For Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Chobisa with Ms. Priyansha GuptaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Singh BhatiClick Here To Read/Download Order

Wrong Charge Strikes At Root Of Disciplinary Action: Rajasthan High Court Reinstates CRPF Constable

Nupur Agrawal

Tags