Service Benefits To Missing CRPF Constable's Father Can't Be Denied For Want Of Lodging Separate FIR: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the father of a CRPF constable who went missing while undergoing training cannot be denied service and pensionary benefits merely because he did not separately lodge a missing complaint. In doing so the Court quashed the constable's ex parte removal from service, holding that the force could not evade responsibility after its own authorities had reported him missing.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed:“The petitioner's son was not in the custody of the petitioner - father when he went missing. He was under the control and command of the Commanding Officer, Group Centre, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi in effect in his regimental family. In such a case, when even the warrant of arrest could not be executed against the Constable, as he could not be found at his native place, the ex-parte departmental proceedings in his absence leading to his removal from service could hardly justify the charges alleged against him… The totality of facts and circumstances borne out from record… persuade us to hold that the insistence upon lodging of an FIR by the petitioner for his missing son would not be mandatory for consideration of the claim for service benefits to which his legal heirs or nominees are entitled as per law.”The Court accordingly directed the respondent authorities to process the claim for service benefits of the employee, M. Srikanth, “treating him as missing for the last more than 10 years,” and ordered that his admissible service/pensionary benefits be disbursed in favour of the legal heirs/nominees in accordance with the applicable rules, subject to furnishing of an indemnity bond.The writ petition was filed by Shri M. Appa Rao, father of CRPF constable M. Srikanth, seeking service benefits and challenging the action of the authorities in passing an ex parte removal order dated 28 January 2017 against his missing son. The son had earlier been declared unfit for combatized service after amputation of his left leg, and was referred to a Rehabilitation Board, which recommended that he continue till completion of 10 years' service so as to become entitled to pensionary benefits and undergo vocational training subject to his willingness. He was thereafter sent for a computer training programme in New Delhi.During his stay at Group Centre, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi, he was found absent from roll call on 1 June 2015. A search party “scoured the bus stand and nearest railway station, but could not trace him.” The CRPF then treated him as a deserter, lodged a written complaint with Baba Haridas Nagar Police Station, Najafgarh, and also initiated proceedings under the CRPF Act, leading to issuance of a warrant of arrest. As M. Srikant could not be found, the warrant of arrest could not be successfully executed, leading to an ex parte departmental enquiry which culminated in the penalty of removal from service for alleged grave misconduct.The father approached the High Court contending that his son had in fact gone missing and that the service benefits due to the family could not be defeated by treating him as a deserter. The respondents, on the other hand, took the stand that the family had not lodged an FIR before the police station having jurisdiction over the native place, and therefore the claim for family pension and other benefits had not been processed. They also stated that it would have to be verified as to who among the legal heirs would be entitled to the monetary benefits.The High Court framed two issues: (1) whether the ex parte removal order passed after declaring the constable a deserter was sustainable in law? (2) whether, in the absence of a missing complaint by the petitioner-father, service benefits could be denied even though the employee had remained untraced for more than a decade? After due consideration, the Court answered both these questions in favour of the petitioners. The Court emphasised that this was not a case of the constable going missing “while on off-duty, beyond the duty hours and the precincts” of the Group Centre. Rather, he went missing while undergoing training within the “control and command” of the CRPF authorities. The Court also noted that the CRPF had itself lodged a complaint about his disappearance, but no material had been brought on record to show that he was ever found alive, traced, or established to be an absconder. Noting the absence of CCTV footage as evidence, the Court observed that “the respondent CRPF authorities cannot be absolved of their responsibility of maintaining the records and the CCTV footage.”On the departmental enquiry, the Court found that where the warrant of arrest itself could not be executed the ex parte departmental proceedings in his absence could “hardly justify the charges alleged against him.” The Bench said that by imposing such a penalty of removal upon “such a constable found missing from the control and command of Group Centre,...

Service Benefits To Missing CRPF Constable's Father Can't Be Denied For Want Of Lodging Separate FIR: Telangana High Court

Ananya Tangri

Tags