The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) employee serving as a Dhobi and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that the dismissal for consuming alcohol while on duty and misbehaving with colleagues was “shockingly disproportionate” to the misconduct and contrary to the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.
The petitioner faced a complaint alleging alcohol consumption on duty and unruly behaviour towards colleagues. He was found guilty under Section 10(n) of the CRPF Act, 1949 a provision relating to less heinous offences involving acts or omissions prejudicial to good order and discipline and sentenced to ten days’ simple imprisonment in quarter guards.
While he was in custody serving this sentence, the authorities served a show-cause notice requiring a reply by the following day. Because he was imprisoned, he could not submit a response. He was subsequently suspended and dismissed from service.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal, contending that he was denied the statements of witnesses and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the medical report did not indicate any sign of alcohol consumption and that the penalty of dismissal was highly disproportionate.
Justice Jain observed that there was no charge of a more heinous offence and that termination or removal constitutes a major penalty which can be awarded only for grave misconduct. The Court remarked that awarding dismissal for a less heinous offence was not permissible and described the punishment as amounting to the “economic death” of an individual.
It held that the Commandant had acted in a hurried and autocratic manner amounting to a gross misuse of power, particularly as the medical report did not support the allegations and the petitioner was in custody on the date the notice was served and therefore could not file a reply. The Court emphasised that membership of a disciplined force does not entitle the authorities to deny an employee a fair hearing or an opportunity to present his defence.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed that the petitioner be reinstated. The ruling underscores that disciplinary action in the CRPF must remain proportionate to the proven misconduct and must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice and the framework of the CRPF Act, 1949.
(Source: LiveLaw report dated 29 October 2026 on the Rajasthan High Court judgment delivered by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain.)
