Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010241282015 2026:GAU-AS:7424 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6462/2015 ON THE DETH OF LATE SRI PHUL KUMAR DAS, HIS LEGAL HEIR SMT. RANU DAS, W/O LATE PHUL KUMAR DAS, R/O VILL. AND P.O.- SATPUKHLI, P.S.- PALASHBARI, KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781132. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-1 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.D DUTTA, MS T WAPANGLA,MR. R DEKA,MR. D GOGOI,MR.R MAZUMDAR,MR.H BEZBARUAH,MR.S BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : , C.G.C.,MRM R ADHIKARI,ASSTT.S.G.I. Page No.# 2/15 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 26.05.2026 Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned C.G.C. appearing for the respondents. 2. At the outset it is to be noted that the present writ petition was instituted by one Phul Kumar Das (hereinafter referred to as the original petitioner). However, after institution of the present writ petition, the original petitioner passed on, on 10.01.2019. Accordingly, his wife Smti. Ranu Das, approached this Court by way of instituting an interlocutory application being I.A.(C).No.3380/2024, praying for permission to substitute herself in place of the original petitioner in the present writ petition. This Court vide order dated 21.05.2025, after considering the issues raised in the said interlocutory application, including the delay occasioning in institution of the substitution application, proceeded to permit Ranu Das, to substitute herself in place of the original petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. The original petitioner had instituted the present writ petition, inter alia, assailing an order dated 01.09.2015, issued by the Commandant Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement with pension and gratuity upon the original petitioner on conclusion of the Departmental proceedings instituted against him. Page No.# 3/15 4. From the materials brought on record from the writ petition, this Court finds that the original petitioner had proceeded on Earned Leave for 30 (thirty) days w.e.f. 04.06.2014 to 03.07.2014. The original petitioner was to report back for his duties on 03.07.2014 by the time of the evening roll call. However, it is found that the original petitioner did not resume his duties. It is projected in the writ petition that the original petitioner had reported for duties on the next date i.e. 04.07.2014 at late night hours, however the security at the gate of the unit of the original petitioner did not permit the original petitioner to enter into the premises of the unit and he was required to leave the place, inasmuch as, the Superior Officers had verbally directed the security personnel not to permit entry into the premises after evening hours. It is further projected that left with no other alternative, the original petitioner proceeded back to his native place with the intention of reporting back the next day. It is projected that the original petitioner from the next day, developed serious headache and had a loss of memory which is projected to have continued from 04.07.2014 to April 2015. In the meanwhile, the original petitioner not being found to have reported for his duties, the respondent authorities had declared the petitioner to be a Deserter w.e.f. 04.07.2014. Thereafter, a warrant of arrest was issued which was executed on 10.03.2015, by the civil police and the original petitioner was produced before the Group Centre, CRPF at Guwahati on 10.03.2015. Page No.# 4/15 It is further projected that on such production of the original petitioner, the original petitioner was forwarded to the Composite Hospital, CRPF, at Guwahati, for his medical examination. The original petitioner thereafter, received treatment in the said hospital w.e.f. 10.03.2015 to 10.04.2015. It is projected that in the discharge slip, it was highlighted that the original petitioner was suffering from ADS Hypothyroidism and Mild Cerebral Atrophy (brain). The petitioner’s discharge slip further stipulated that he was advised duties without use of firearms. After the discharge of the original petitioner, his Disciplinary Authority proceeded to institute a Disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner vide issuance of a Memorandum of Charge dated 22.01.2015. 03 (three) Articles of Charge were framed against the petitioner. The original petitioner participated in the enquiry that followed the issuance of the said Memorandum of Charge and on conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report wherein, the charges leveled against the original petitioner was found to have been established. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority of the original petitioner vide order dated 01.09.2015, considering the materials coming on record, by concurring with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to impose upon the original petitioner, the penalty of Compulsory Retirement from service, however, with pension and gratuity. Being aggrieved the original petitioner has instituted the present writ Page No.# 5/15 petition. 5. Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts, noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the original petitioner on being produced before the respondent authorities after his arrest on 10.03.2015, was sent by the respondent authorities to the Composite Hospital Group Centre, CRPF, for medical examination. He submits that the report submitted by the said hospital would reveal that the petitioner was suffering from Mild Cerebral Atrophy (brain), which he contends to be a disease which has the effect of damaging the brain cells. 5.1 Mr. Gogoi, has also submitted the fact that the original petitioner had come to his unit for rejoining after availing leave on 04.07.2014, at night hours was not denied by the respondents in the affidavit. 5.2. Mr. D. Gogoi, further submits that the said medical report being of the hospital of the respondents, the same was available with the respondent authorities, however, during the enquiry, neither the Enquiry Officer nor any other witness deposing in the enquiry had referred to the said report. 5.3. Mr. D. Gogoi, by taking this Court through the order dated 01.09.2015, passed by the Disciplinary Authority contends that the opinion rendered with regard to the health condition of the original petitioner by the Doctors of the Composite Hospital was not even referred to in the said order. 5.4. Mr. D. Gogoi, further submits that the absence of the original Page No.# 6/15 petitioner was on account of the memory loss occasioning because of the ailments suffered by him. He submits that the said reason assigned by the original petitioner is found to be established from the medical report submitted in the matter by the Doctors of the Composite Hospital of the respondents, herein. Accordingly, he submits that the absence of the original petitioner being justified, the said period cannot be held to be unauthorized absence and the petitioner’s justification was mandated to be considered by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, he submits that no misconduct can be said to have been committed by the original petitioner in the matter, inasmuch as, he has to remain absent, on account of reasons beyond his control. Accordingly, Mr. D. Gogoi, submits that the impugned order dated 01.09.2015 , would mandate an interference from this Court. 6. Per contra Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned C.G.C., appearing for the respondents, submits that the original petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent after 03.07.2014, inasmuch as, no intimation with regard to his such absence was given to the authorities of the unit at any point of time. He submits that in the event, the original petitioner was not in a position to communicate with his unit, his family members, who is projected to have also accompanied him to his unit on 04.07.2014, at late night hours, ought to have communicated the conditions of the original petitioner to the unit officials. He finds that there is no material brought on record by the petitioner to demonstrate any such communication being made. Accordingly, he submits that in absence of any intimation with regard to the reasons for the absence Page No.# 7/15 of the petitioner, the said period of absence of the original petitioner must be held to be unauthorized. 6.1. Mr. M. R. Adhikari, has submitted that there is not even a indication made, atleast in the present writ petition, of the nature of treatment received by the original petitioner for the ailment suffered by him w.e.f. 03.07.2014 to 09.03.2015, when the petitioner had remained unauthorizely absent from his duties. 6.2. Mr. M. R. Adhikari, has further submitted that during the enquiry, the original petitioner had not brought on record any material and/or contention to justify his absence. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry proceeded to conclude that the Articles of Charge Nos.1, 2 and 3, stood established against the original petitioner. 6.3. Mr. M. R. Adhikari, further submits that the Article of Charge Nos.1 and 2 having been established, the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of determining the quantum of punishment required to be imposed upon the petitioner had taken note of the Article of Charge No.3, which related to similar misconduct committed by the original petitioner in the past, for which he was punished. Accordingly, Mr. Adhikari, submits that considering the misconduct which formed the basis of the Article of Charge Nos.1 and 2 of the Memorandum of Charge dated 01.09.2015, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to take a lenient view in the matter and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from services with pension and gratuity. Accordingly, Page No.# 8/15 Mr. Adhikari submits that the penalty as imposed upon the original petitioner vide order dated 01.09.2015 would not mandate any interference.. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The facts noticed, hereinabove, leading to institution of a Departmental proceeding against the original petitione, are not in dispute. Accordingly, the same is not reiterated. 9. A Departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the original petitioner vide issuance of a Memorandum of Charge dated 22.01.2015. 3 (three) Articles of Charge came to be framed against the petitioner, therein. The Articles of Charge as framed against the petitioner, being relevant, the same are extracted, hereinbelow; “Article of charge framed against Force No. 971240545 Constable General Duty Phool Kumar Das, Group Center, Central Reserve Police Force. ARTICLE-1 That Force No. 971240545 Constable General Duty Phool Kumar Das, Group Center, Central Reserve Police Force while serving as Constable/General Duty in the Head quarter Company has committed an act of misconduct under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949 inasmuch as after availing earned leave of 30. Days from 04/06/2014 to 03/07/2014, he was required to report back in the evening of 03/07/2014 but the employee has remained absent from 04/07/2014 from duty/camp/lines without permission or leave from the competent authority. Article-2 That while posted in the Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Force Page No.# 9/15 No. 971240545 Constable/General Duty Phul Kumar Das of Group Centre, CRPF, committed an act of neglect of duty, remissness in discharge of duty, misconduct, Indiscipline under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, inasmuch as, the employee was ordered vide letter No. L-II 2/2014-HQ dated 07/07/2014 and 22/7/2014 issued by the Assistant Commandant (HQ) to report for duty but neither the employee reported back nor he prayed for extension of leave. Article-3 That while posted in the Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Force No. 971240545 Constable/General Duty Phul Kumar Das of Group Centre, CRPF, committed an act of neglect of duty, remissness in discharge of duty, misconduct, indiscipline under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Inasmuch as, the employee is habitual in remaining absent from duty/camp/line without permission/leave, instances of which are reproduced below:- a) From 06/10/2011 afternoon to 11/10/2011 afternoon, total 5 days, he remained absent from camp/line without permission from the competent authority. b) From 11/07/2012 to 24/07/2012, total 14 days, he remained absent from camp/line without permission from the competent authority. c) From 21/10/2013 to 12/11/2013, total 23 days, he remained absent from the line.” 10. A perusal of the Article of Charge No.1, would reveal that the original petitioner who was serving as a Constable [General Duty] in the Headquarter Company of the Group Center, CRPF, was alleged that after availing Earned Leave for 30 (thirty) days from 04.06.2014 to 03.07.2014, he was required to report back in the evening Roll Call of 03.07.2014, but the employee Page No.# 10/15 remained absent from 04.07.2014, without permission or leave from the competent authority. The materials brought on record would go to reveal that admittedly the original petitioner had not reported back for his duties on 03.07.2014, before the evening roll call. However, the petitioner’s projection that he along with his family members had come to the unit on 04.07.2014, however at late night hours with the object of rejoining his services, but was prevented from entering the premises of the unit by the security personnel, is not disputed by the respondent authorities. The respondents in the affidavit had also admitted to the position that the petitioner had come to the gate of the unit on 04.07.2014, for resumption of his duties but he was not permitted to enter the premises, inasmuch as, there was a standing instructions not to permit any person to enter the unit premises after evening hours. Accordingly, the fact that the original petitioner had come on 04.07.2014 to resume his services is admitted by the respondent authorities. The original petitioner thereafter, has projected that he had suffered a severe headache and had a corresponding memory loss for the reason of which he was not in a position to understand as to what was happening till around April 2015. The original petitioner is found to have been declared a Deserter on 04.07.2014, along with the issuance of a warrant requiring his arrest. The warrant of arrest was executed by the jurisdictional Police Station on 10.03.2015. On his such arrest, the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Commandant CRPF, and he was kept in judicial custody. The original petitioner was thereafter, released from judicial custody Page No.# 11/15 and sent to the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati, for medical check-up. The petitioner remained admitted in the Composite Hospital, receiving treatment from 10.03.2015 to 10.04.2015. In the discharge slip issued to the original petitioner it was recorded as follows; “ADS & Hypothyroidism & Mild cerebral Atrophy (brain)." 11. Further the petitioner was directed to be deployed for duties without firearms. The doctors examining the petitioner in the Composite Hospital had held the petitioner to be suffering from Mild Cerebral Atrophy (brain). After the release of the petitioner from hospital, he was on 13.04.2015, served with a copy of the Memorandum of Charge dated 22.01.2015. Thereafter, a Departmental enquiry was held. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his Enquiry Report. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter imposed the penalty of Compulsory Retirement upon the petitioner, however with Pension and Gratuity. From the order dated 01.09.2015, wherein, there is a detailed examination of the enquiry proceedings as well as the report of the Enquiry Officer, this Court does not find any reference being made to the said opinion of the doctors of the Composite Hospital which is the hospital of the respondents. The said opinion of the doctors would go to reveal that the absence of the petitioner from his services w.e.f. 04.07.2014, was on account of situation he found himself in, which was beyond his control. Accordingly, the said opinion of the medical doctors of the Composite Hospital justifies the absence of the original Page No.# 12/15 petitioner. The respondent authorities had the said Medical Opinion, with them when the Departmental enquiry against the petitioner was being conducted, however, it is found that the said opinion was not factored in by the Enquiry Officer before submitting his Report in the matter. The said opinion was also not factored in by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the impugned order dated 01.09.2015. 12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that from the materials brought on record it cannot be held that the absence of the petitioner was unauthorized i.e. to mean that it was without a justified cause. The Medical Opinion of the doctors examining the petitioner in the Composite Hospital of the respondents, having brought on record a reason justifying the absence of the petitioner , this Court in the attending facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, holds that the period of absence of the petitioner cannot be held to be unauthorized in any manner. Accordingly, no misconduct is found to have been committed by the petitioner within the meaning of Section 11 (1) of the Central Police Force Act, 1949. 13. In view of the above conclusions, this Court holds that Article of Charge No.1 to have not been established against the original petitioner. 14. With regard to Article of Charge No.2, the same is found to have been derived from the Article of Charge No.1, and the same alleges that the petitioner although was issued communications to report back for duty, he had not reported back nor prayed for extension of leave. The Enquiry Officer Page No.# 13/15 in his Enquiry Report had held the Article of Charge No.2 to be established against the petitioner basing on the deposition of Departmental Witnesses Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the enquiry held in the matter. 15. Mr. M. R. Adhikari, has furnished a translated copy of the enquiry report. This Court on perusal of the same finds that the petitioner had admitted that he had received the notices issued to him at his residential address requiring him to resume his services, however, it was further stated by the petitioner, that on account of his poor mental condition he was not in a position to understand the contents of the notices. The said stand taken by the petitioner is not found to have been examined in the Enquiry. The said stand having been taken by the petitioner, it was required of the Enquiry Officer to appreciate the same and draw his conclusions, thereon, which however, is not found to have been done. Accordingly, this Court in view of the materials coming on record holds that the Article of Charge No.2, also cannot be held to have been established. 16. Article of Charge No.3, only pertains to the past misconduct of the original petitioner, the same would be relevant for the purpose of the determination by the Disciplinary Authority of the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner, if the Article of Charge Nos.1 and 2 are held to have been established. This Court having held the Article of Charge Nos.1 and 2 to have not been established, Article of Charge No.3, by itself cannot be the reason for imposition of any penalty upon the petitioner. Accordingly, a Page No.# 14/15 further discussion on the Article of Charge No.3 would not be mandated. 17. For the reasons as assigned, hereinabove, this Court finds that the Articles of Charge Nos.1 and 2, having not been established, no penalty was mandated to be imposed upon the petitioner in the matter. The absence of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances involved in the matter in the considered view of this Court cannot be held to be unauthorized. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.09.2015 stands set aside. Accordingly, the original petitioner is held to have continued in his services w.e.f. 01.09.2015 till the date of his death i.e. 19.01.2019. 18. This Court having interfered with the order dated 01.09.2015, and having also held that the original petitioner is deemed to have continued in his services w.e.f. 01.09.2015 to 19.01.2019, the respondent authorities are directed to regularize the said period of service of the petitioner notionally and fix the pay of the original petitioner as on 19.01.2019. The respondents, thereafter shall compute the family pension receivable by the wife of the original petitioner i.e. the present petitioner w.e.f., 20.01.2019, along with the pensionary benefits so receivable on account of the services rendered by the original petitioner. The original petitioner having being imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement along with pension and gratuity, the pensionary benefits, if already, granted to the original petitioner, the same would now be required to be revised by construing the petitioner to have continued in his services till 19.01.2019. On such re-computation being Page No.# 15/15 made, the arrears working out in this connection be released to the petitioner, herein. The pension amount received by the petitioner after 01.09.2015, be not recovered and the same be construed as the salaries received by the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 01.09.2015 to 19.01.2019. The original petitioner for the said period would not be entitled to any further salaries. In the event, the family pension was authorized to the petitioner, herein, after 19.01.2019, the amount so received by the original petitioner shall be deducted while authorizing to her fresh family pension in accordance with the directions passed, hereinabove. 19. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant