Jharkhand High Court
D). Smt. Vimla vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:33484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6765 of 2018
---------
1.A). Smt. Niraj Tomar, aged about 42 years, wife of late Naresh Tomar;
1.B). Shri Om Tomar, aged about 16 years, son of late Naresh Tomar
1.C). Shri Shyam Tomar, aged about 15 years, son of late Naresh Tomar
1.D). Smt. Vimla, aged about 68 years, W/o Surendra;
All petitioners are residents of Village Nizampur, P.O. & P.S. Hapur, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh ....Petitioners Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs North Block at New Delhi-110001, P.O.-Connaught Place-50 P.S.-Connaught Place, District-New Delhi.
2. D.G.P., C.R.P.F., block No.1, C.G.O. Complex Procurement Cell Provisioning, Directorate, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. Inspector General, Northern Sector, C.R.P.F. West Part, block No.3 Wing 2, R.K. Puram, P.O. & P.S.-R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.
4. D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Gurgaon, Group Centre, Kadarpur, P.O.- Badhshahpur, P.S.-Badhshahpur, District-Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001.
5. Commandant 134 Battalion, C.R.P.F., G.L.A. College, P.O.-G.L.A. College, P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamu (Jharkhand) PIN No.-822101. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pradyuman Poddar, Advocate Mr. Mehul Raj, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC Mr. Shashank Kumar, A.C. to CGC,
---------
C.A.V. ON: 17.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 07/11/2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the original-petitioner, namely, Naresh Tomar for the 1 2025:JHHC:33484 following reliefs;
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 12-03-2010 (Ann-3) passed by commandant 134 Battalion, C.R.P.F., G.L.A. College Daltonganj, Jharkhand (Respondent No. 5) whereby and whereunder Major penalty of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner and order dated 10-09-2010(Ann-4) passed by D.I.G., C.R.P.F. Gurgaon who has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against his dismissed order dated 12-03-2010, and further to set aside order dated 05-04-2011(Annexure 5) passed by Inspector General, Northern Sector, R.K. Puram, New Delhi whereby and whereunder revision application of the petitioner was rejected and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 31-10-2011 (Ann-7) passed by respondent no. 2, who has also dismissed the application filed by the petitioner in a cryptic order.
(ii) For a further direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the some post of constable with all consequential benefits.
(iii) For any other appropriate writ/order/direction that your lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. During pendency of this writ application, the original- Petitioner, namely, Naresh Tomar had died, and the present Petitioners, being his legal heirs, have been substituted pursuant to order of this Court.
4. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the writ application are that the original petitioner (now deceased) was enrolled in C.R.P.F. as constable/GD on 24.03.2003 and on 06.08.2009 he was given a show cause notice on the charge of misconduct for which the petitioner submitted his reply. The reply of the delinquent employee was not accepted and therefore charges were framed and departmental enquiry was 2 2025:JHHC:33484 initiated in which several witnesses were examined.
Thereafter, on the request of the original-Petitioner the Inquiry officer was changed who was directed to continue the enquiry from the same stage where it was left. However, the new Inquiry officer contended before the commandant that the former Inquiry officer has lost the file of the inquiry and consequently, he was directed to initiate the enquiry afresh.
It is alleged by the Ld. Counsel for the delinquent employee that in the subsequent proceedings, all the witnesses gave contradictory statements under the influence of the company commander and relying upon them the Inquiry officer submitted adverse report. Thereafter, on 11.3.2010 the disciplinary authority gave 15 days' time to the delinquent employee to oppose the charges framed against him; however, on 12.3.2010, he was terminated from the service. The original-petitioner appealed against the said order which was rejected and again he preferred revision which was also dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the original-Petitioner had submitted that during the first enquiry; the witnesses gave statements favourable to the delinquent employee but the same was alleged to be misplaced and therefore they were 3 2025:JHHC:33484 examined again and they gave contradictory statements; as such, their statements cannot be relied upon.
6. Learned counsel has further assailed the termination order on the ground that that the charge no.1 with which the delinquent employee was charged is vague as it fails to specify when and in what manner, the delinquent employee disobeyed the order of superior officers and argued with them or how he was careless on his duty. He had also submitted that the said charge was general in nature and in absence of specific charge; the original-petitioner could not defend the allegations properly.
7. In regard to charge no. 2, he had submitted that the delinquent employee was not intentionally absent from duty; rather he was absent because his wife was admitted in hospital and only for this reason, he sent a leave application by registered post on 20.05.2009 addressing to the company commandment.
8. Learned ASGI on behalf of the Respondent authorities submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the matters of disciplinary proceeding. He further submitted that when the delinquent employee was posted at Bhandariya, which is the highly sensitive Naxal affected area, he did not report timely 4 2025:JHHC:33484 on duty, sat down on empty ammunition box, and removed his belt and cap during his duty and used unparliamentary language with seniors.
9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the dismissal order does not require any interference, inasmuch as, when opportunity to defend his case was provided to the delinquent employee, he did not submit any defence and vide application dated 26.12.2009 he submitted that the departmental inquiry may be finalized at the earliest.
He finally submitted that looking to the negligence and indiscipline of the original-petitioner; the order of termination was proportionate and to buttress his argument learned ASGI relied upon Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat1.
10. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits; it appears that the main grievance of the original- petitioner/ delinquent employee is that the order of termination is perverse as charge no. 1 was vague and his explanation/reply for charge no. 2 was not considered. For brevity the charges are quoted herein below;
मद-1 यह क बल सं या 031538734 सपाह / जी०डी० नरे श कुमार तौमर, ए/134 बटा लयन के० र०पु०बल ने सं०/ जीडी के पद पर कायरत रहते हुए के य रजव पु लस बल अ ध नयम 1949 क धारा 11 (1) के अधीन बल के सद य होने क है सयत से 1 (2005) 13 SCC 228 5 2025:JHHC:33484 अवचार (Misconduct), कदाचार व अनुशासनह नता का अपराध कया है, िजसके तहत बल सं या 031538734 सपाह /जी०डी० नरे श कुमार तौमर ने स नयर एन०सी०ओ०, अ धन थ अ धका रय व क पनी कमा डर के आदे श क अवहेलना करने, उनसे बहसवाजी करने तथा सौपी गई यूट के त लापरवाह करने का अपराध कया है जो क बल के आदे श एवं अनुशासन के व ध है तथा द डनीय अपराध है।
मद-दो यह क बल सं या 031538734 सपाह /जी०डी० नरे श कुमार तौमर, ए/134 बटा लयन के रपु बल म स० / जीडी के पद पर कायरत रहते हुए के य रजव पु लस बल अ ध नयम 1949 क धारा 11 (1) के अधीन बल के सद य होने क है सयत से अवचार (Misconduct), कदाचार व अनुशासनह नता का अपराध कया है, िजसम बल सं या 031538734 सपाह /जी०डी० नरे श कुमार तौमर दनांक 25/12/2008 से 28/12/2008 तक 04 दन तथा दनांक 7/5/2009 से 6/7/2009 तक 61 दन बना कसी स म आधकार क अनुम त के डयूट से भगौडा रहा । अतः बल सं या 031538734 सपाह /जी०डी० नरे श कुमार तौमर ने अवचार, कदाचार व अनुशासनह नता का अपराध कया है जो क बल के आदे श एवं अनुशासन के व ध है तथा द डनीय अपराध है।
11. After going through the charge no. 1, it appears that the charge contains several allegations i.e. non- compliance with the directions of senior officials, argumentative, negligent in performing duties. However, not a single/specific incident has been pointed out in the charge framed as to when the petitioner was not complying with the directions of senior officials or he was argumentative or negligent in performing his duties. This Court is having no hesitation in holding that the Charge No.1 is vague in nature as opposed to be specific and definite.
12. The law is well settled that even in a domestic enquiry, the charges must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be obligatory even if 6 2025:JHHC:33484 the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague; that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported2 and also the decision rendered in Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan3.
13. In yet another judgment in the case of Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank4 the Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon its earlier judgments held at para 13 and 14 as under:
"13. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B.:
"5. ... The grounds on which it is proposed to take actionhave to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him."
14. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar and in para 35 of the judgment as reported in SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges." 2 AIR 1963 SC 1723 3 (1986) 3 SCC 454 4 (2011) 14 SCC 379 7 2025:JHHC:33484 By going through the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is abundantly clear that the charge must be specific, clear and definite; which is absent in the instant case.
14. Now coming to charge no.2, which alleges unauthorised absence from duty by the delinquent employee for a period of 65 days. This Court must consider whether unauthorised absence for a period of 65 days may lead to dismissal from service.
15. The question whether "unauthorised absence from duty" amounts to failure of devotion to duty, misconduct or against the orders and discipline of the force; cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India5 has categorically held that if absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful.
Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful and in such a case the employee 5 (2012) 3 SCC 178 8 2025:JHHC:33484 cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant and in the absence of any finding to prove that the absence of the delinquent employee was wilful; it will not amount to misconduct. The relevant paragraph of Krushnakant B. Parmar (Supra) is quoted herein below:
"17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant.
18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct."
16. In the case at hand, the Inquiry officer has not even considered the explanation provided for unauthorised absence of the delinquent employee that his wife was hospitalised and held that the original-Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty and failed to hold that the absence was wilful. The disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority and revisional authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the original-petitioner guilty.
17. The case relied upon by learned ASGI is not applicable in the present set of facts and circumstance as in 9 2025:JHHC:33484 Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra) there was unauthorised absence for a period of more than 300 days and no mitigating circumstance or justification was provided for such absence. However, in the instant case the original-petitioner sent a letter through registered post to the company commandant explaining the reason for his absence that was hospitalisation of his wife which is certainly reasonable and justifiable cause for his unauthorised absence and hence this case stands on a different footing than Ghulam Mohd. Bhat(supra).
18. Having regard to the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court; the vague nature of charge no.1 and failure to prove that unauthorised absence of the delinquent employee was wilful in regard to charge no. 2 and failure of the Appellate and the Revisional authority to appreciate the same, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the order of dismissal dated 12.03.2010, the appellate order dated 10.09.2010 and revisional order dated 05.04.2011, as well as order dated 31.10.2011 passed by respondent no.2, are non-est in the eye of law, and thus, the same, are hereby, quashed and set aside.
19. Since the delinquent-employee/original Petitioner had died during pendency of this writ application; the entire consequential benefits, including the back wages, calculating 10 2025:JHHC:33484 from the date of dismissal till the date of death of the delinquent-employee/original petitioner, shall be paid to the present Petitioners who are the legal heirs, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which the Respondents shall also be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of dismissal till the date of actual payment of entire consequential benefits to the present petitioners.
20. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) November 07, 2025 Amardeep/-
A.F.R. Uploaded 12/11/2025 11