[2026:RJ-JP:1519] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20218/2025 Ex. Ct/gd Parmar Jayvant Sinh Harubha S/o Parmar Harubha, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Office Ranpura, District, Botad, State, Gujrat-382245 Of 246 Bn Crpf Nayla Jaipur (Raj.) 303027 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary M.h.a New Delhi-01 2. Director General Crpf, Cgo Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi-03 3. Inspector General Rajasthan Sector Crpf, Nayla Jaipur (Raj.) - 303027 4. Deputy Inspector General, Range Crpf, Ajmer (Raj.)- 305005 5. Commandant, 246 Bn Crpf Nayla Jaipur (Raj.)- 303027 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Manyu Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghav Sharma for Mr. Samit Bishnoi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 15/01/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 30.09.2023, the petitioner, who rendered approximately fourteen years of service in CRPF, has been dismissed from service under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. It is submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority (DIG Range) came to be rejected on 04.12.2023, and the subsequent revision petition also stood dismissed on 26.01.2024. [2026:RJ-JP:1519] (2 of 4) [CW-20218/2025] Learned counsel contends that at one hand, vide Annexure- 7, the period of absenteeism of approximately 66 days had been regularized by the competent authority, while on the other hand, the same period of absence has been treated as gross indiscipline leading to the extreme penalty of removal from service, which is contradictory and arbitrary in nature. Heard the submissions put forth by the learned counsel. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it has been observed that the petitioner remained willfully absent from duty on several occasions without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, and the same is an admitted fact. It has further been observed that the principles of natural justice have duly been complied with and during the course of departmental inquiry, the petitioner admitted the charge of willful absenteeism and not assigned any cogent or satisfactory reasons for the same. The Disciplinary Authority, in para 8 of the impugned order dated 30.09.2023, has recorded a categorical finding after careful consideration of the inquiry report, statements of prosecution witnesses, evidence available on record, and submissions of the parties, which reads as under: “ मै अनुशासननक अनधकारी की हैनसयत से जॉच अनधकारी दारा पसुत की गई नवभागीय जॉन ररपोरर मे संलग सगी अनभयोजन पक के गवाहों का बयान, साकों व जॉय अनधकारी की ररपोरर की गहनता पूवरक अधयन, समीका, नववेचना एवं पकरणों की जॉब परख करने के पशात इस नगरीणे पर पहॅक है नक चॉप अनधकारी न नवनधसम एवं पाकृ नतक एवं शनकयाय को- धान मे रखते हए नवभागीय जाँच पूणर नकया है एवं आरोपी बल संखा 095121232 नसपाही/ जीडी परमार जयवना नसंह हारम को समय- समय पर अपने बचाव का पयारप मौका नदया गया है। आरोपी कानमरक ने उसके ऊपर लगाए गए आरोपों के संबंध मे बचाव हेतु कोई भी दसावेज [2026:RJ-JP:1519] (3 of 4) [CW-20218/2025] अथवा गवाह पसुत नहीं नकया है तथा उसने नबना नकसी दबाव के उस पर लगाये गये आरोप को सीकार नकया है। जाँच अनधकारी दारा नवभागीय जाँच मे यह मली- भांनत नसद नकया है नक आरोपी सकम पानधकारी की अनुमनत के नबना कै म से नदनांक 02/07/2022 23/11/2022 तथा 06/01/2023 को भगौडा हआ है, जो नक बल के ननयमों के नवरद है। आरोपी ने अनुशानसत सदस होने के नाते ननयमों के नवरद कायर नकया है नजसको नकसी भी हालत मे नजर अंदाज नहीं नकया जा सकता है। के नीय ररजरव पुनलस बल जैसे अनुशानसत संगठन मे इस पकार के घोर अनुशासनहीनता के मामले मे नडलाई बरतने पर बल के अन सदसों पर पनतकू ल असर पडता है। अक ऐसे मामलों से गलती से ननपरना अतन आवशक होगा नजरासे नक जल के बाकी सदसों के नलये नमसाल बन जाये व अनुशानसत बल के अनुशासन की ऊं ची परमराओं की रका की जा सके .” The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by both the appellate authority and the revisional authority. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings recorded by the above-mentioned authorities. In a uniformed and disciplined force such as CRPF, willful absenteeism during the repeated course of intervals, without due authorization, constitutes a serious act of indiscipline. It has been observed by this Court that while dismissing the service of the petitioner, due procedure has been followed and a charge-sheet was issued, a regular departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, and the delinquent employee had full opportunity to rebut the said charges, which he failed to do either by leading evidence or by giving any satisfactory explanation. It has further been observed that the petitioner already availed all the three statutory remedies available, and all the three authorities have taken a consistent view on the same lines. [2026:RJ-JP:1519] (4 of 4) [CW-20218/2025] In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in dicta of Vidya Prakash v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1988) 2 SCC 459 and Union of India & Ors. v. Ex. No.6492086A Sep/ASH Kulbeer Singh arising out of Civil Appeal No.3095 of 2017, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /8