Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010193932020 2026:GAU-AS:7873 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/25/2021 RAJU KUMAR SARMA NO. 015131025 CT/GD S/O LATE KRISHNA SARMA VILLAGE AND PO AKOYA DIST BARPETA, ASSAM, 781329 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CRPF HEADQUARTER BLOCK 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110003 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH EASTERN SECTOR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE STONEY HAVEN BISHOP COTTON ROAD SHILLONG MEGHALAYA 793001 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RANGE CRPF. AMERIGOG Page No.# 2/10 GUWAHATI 781023 5:THE COMMANDANT 60TH BATTALION CRPF CHAKRADHARPUR JHARKAND 83310 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. P S BHATTACHARYYA (CGC) (r- 1 to 5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 05.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Bhatacharyya, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 25.03.2013, issued by the Commandant, 60th Battalion, CRPF, imposing upon the petitioner penalty of dismissal from service. 3. As projected in the writ petition the petitioner, while discharging duties as constable with the 60th Battalion of CRPF, Chakradharpur, in the State of Jharkhand, had proceeded on leave to his native village Page No.# 3/10 situated in the District of Barpeta, Assam, w.e.f. 27.09.2011. The leave of the petitioner was so granted till 10.11.2011. It is further projected in the writ petition that the petitioner after reaching home was afflicted with various ailments for which he had to remain under constant medical attention from 2011 to 2018. The petitioner further contends that due to his prolonged illness, he was not in a position to resume his service nor send any communication to his Battalion. The petitioner projects that in pursuance to an Ex-parte Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner, after declaring him to be a Deserter from the Force w.e.f. 11.11.2011, he was vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2013, dismissed him from service. The petitioner further projects that on receipt of the said copy of the impugned order and after being declared to be physically fit by the doctors attending on him, he had submitted an appeal before the DIGP, CRPF, Guwahati Range, in the month of November, 2018. The said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority by holding that the same was so preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a Review Petition before the Revisioning Authority on 25.02.2019. The said Review Petition was also dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2019. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ Page No.# 4/10 petition. 4. Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner by reiterating the facts, noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner was under treatment after he had reached his native place on leave w.e.f. 27.09.2011 and accordingly, was not in a position to contact his Unit Authorities and inform them about the inability on his part to resume his services. He submits that the petitioner on regaining his health and being declared to be physically fit by the doctors attending on him, had taken steps against the Ex-Parte Departmental proceeding instituted against him, leading to the issuance of the impugned order dated 25.03.2013, however he submits that the Appeal as well as the Revision petition preferred by the petitioner were rejected by the respondent authorities without even considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, therein. On a query raised by this Court, as to whether the show-cause notice with regard to holding of the enquiry as well as the Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner, Mr. Hoque, has fairly submitted that from the appeal so filed by the petitioner as well as in the Revision Petition, there is no mention that the petitioner had not received the said documents. Page No.# 5/10 5. Per contra Mr. P. S. Bhatacharyya, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, submits that the respondent authorities after declaring the petitioner a deserter, in terms of the decisions of the Court of Enquiry, had instituted a Departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide issuance of a Memorandum of Charge dated 19.09.2012. He submits that a copy of the said Memorandum of Charge was sent to the petitioner at his residential address as disclosed in his service record. He submits that the petitioner did not respond thereto. The written statement to the Memorandum of Charge not being received from the petitioner, the respondent authorities proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry in the matter. The Enquiry Officer, on entering into the enquiry, had issued notices to the petitioner requiring his presence before him. It is contended that the said notices were also not responded to by the petitioner. Thereafter, on conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer having submitted his Enquiry Report, a copy thereof, was also forwarded to the residential address of the petitioner. However, the petitioner also did not respond thereto. Mr. Bhatacharyya, submits that in view of the said position, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to consider the materials coming on record as well as the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report and on being satisfied with the fact that the allegations leveled against Page No.# 6/10 the petitioner stood established from the materials coming on record in the enquiry, proceeded vide order dated 25.03.2013 to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. 6. Mr. P. S. Bhatacharyya, submits that the petitioner had been granted all due opportunities to defend the charges leveled against him, however, the petitioner had not responded to the same. He submits that from the materials brought on record in the writ petition it cannot be discerned that the petitioner was not even in a position to send a written intimation to his Unit about the reasons for his absence. 7. Mr. P. S. Bhatacharyya, further submits that, in the event, the petitioner was suffering from any ailments, he would have received free treatment for the same at the hospital of the Force. However, the petitioner is not found to have even availed the said treatment. Accordingly, Mr. P. S. Bhatacharyya, submits that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate any interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The petitioner on having remained absent without any Page No.# 7/10 intimation, a Departmental proceedings, as noticed, hereinabove, was instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of a Office Memorandum (OM) dated 19.09.2012. 10. A perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner would reveal that he was alleged to have disobeyed the orders of the superior authorities and was negligent in performing duties, inasmuch as, he was unauthorisedly absent from his duties w.e.f. 11.11.2011. It was further alleged that the notices issued to the petitioner requiring him to report for duty were also not responded to. 11. As noticed, hereinabove, it has been fairly admitted to by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Memorandum of Charge was forwarded to the petitioner and he has not denied receipt of the same. However, it is found that the petitioner had not responded, thereto, nor intimated the Unit Officials about the reason for his absence from duties. This Court has perused the medical reports brought on record and from the said reports it is not found that the petitioner was incapacitated to such an extent that he was incapable to send a written intimation either by himself or through his family members to the Unit Page No.# 8/10 highlighting, therein, the reasons for his absence from duties. 12. The Enquiry Officer on entering into the enquiry found to have also issued notices by way of registered post to the petitioner, requiring his presence in the enquiry. The receipt of the said notices has not been denied by the petitioner. The non-appearance of the petitioner in the enquiry had naturally led the Enquiry Officer to conduct the proceeding in the enquiry Ex-parte. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and therein, held the charges leveled against the petitioner to be established. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner on receipt of the Enquiry Report had forwarded a copy, thereof, to the petitioner. The petitioner has further not denied receipt of the same. However, it is found that the petitioner had not submitted any representation against the said Enquiry Report. 13. It is in the above background that the Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the materials coming on record in the enquiry as well as the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report, proceeded vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2013, to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner along with other consequential denial of service benefits. This Court has perused the Enquiry Report submitted in the matter by the Enquiry Officer as well Page No.# 9/10 as the contentions raised by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 25.03.2013, and this Court finds that the conclusions drawn, therein, are so drawn basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry which are held to be legally admissible evidence. Further the petitioner in the present writ petition has also not brought on record materials to justify that his absence was for reasons beyond his control and accordingly, the said period of absence is to be deemed to be unauthorized absence. 14. It is a settled position of law that a period of absence cannot automatically be held to be unauthorized, inasmuch as, it is for the delinquent to establish that he had to remain absent from duties for reasons beyond his control. In the present case, it is found that the petitioner had not taken any such steps to demonstrate before the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry, that he had remained absent from his duties for reasons beyond his control. Accordingly, the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the period of absence of the petitioner is clearly unauthorized, would not mandate an interference from this Court. It is to be noted that the petitioner is a member of a Disciplinary Force and his such conduct would not warrant his continuation in the Force and accordingly, the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner after conduct of a Page No.# 10/10 Departmental proceeding on the ground that the petitioner was unauthorizely absent for a long period of time, not being justified by the petitioner to have been so drawn perverse to the materials coming on record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.03.2013, passed by the Disciplinary Authority would not mandate any interference from this Court. 15. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant