Archive · 11 Sep 2026
Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds CRPF Constable’s Removal
A CRPF constable stayed away from work after his approved medical leave ended.
He said he was sick and needed several more months of rest.
Officials did not accept his request for more leave and told him to report for duty.
They said he did not follow those instructions or take part in the disciplinary investigation.
He was later called an absconder and removed from service in 2018.
The constable argued that he was not given a fair chance to explain himself.
The Chhattisgarh High Court disagreed and said he had been given several opportunities.
The court also considered his medical papers suspicious because they were prepared on the last day of his leave.
It said leniency could harm discipline in an armed force.
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the removal of a CRPF constable absent for more than six months.
The constable said illness prevented him from returning after medical leave ended on March 14, 2017.
Authorities rejected his extended-leave request, treated him as unauthorizedly absent, and repeatedly ordered him to report for duty.
The court found his medical documents suspicious and said he failed to participate in disciplinary proceedings despite several opportunities.
The court ruled that removal from service was justified and neither excessive nor disproportionate.
- Who
- A 34-year-old CRPF constable, the Central Reserve Police Force, and the Chhattisgarh High Court.
- What
- The court upheld the constable’s removal from service for prolonged unauthorized absence and failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings.
- When
- He was absent from March 15, 2017, removed in June 2018, and the High Court heard the plea on September 9.
- Where
- The case was heard in the Chhattisgarh High Court; authorities directed him to report to the CRPF hospital in Nagpur.
- Why
- The court said his absence was unjustified, his medical documents were suspicious, and leniency could undermine discipline in an armed force.
Constable’s Arguments
CRPF and Court’s Findings
Medical leave
Constable’s Arguments
The constable said his condition had not improved and that he remained under treatment until June 6, 2017. He submitted medical prescriptions and a certificate seeking six additional months of leave.
CRPF and Court’s Findings
Authorities rejected the request and viewed the medical documents as suspicious because they were prepared on the last day of his approved leave and recommended six months of rest at once.
Fair hearing
Constable’s Arguments
His advocate argued that the inquiry report and removal order were issued without a proper opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice.
CRPF and Court’s Findings
The CRPF argued, and the court found, that he had received several notices and opportunities to join the inquiry but did not respond or participate.
Severity of punishment
Constable’s Arguments
The constable challenged the orders removing him from service and sought relief from the High Court.
CRPF and Court’s Findings
The court said prolonged absence, failure to follow directions, and continued nonparticipation justified removal, especially for a member of a disciplined armed force.
- Approved leave
- One month, from February 13 to March 14, 2017.
- Reported absence
- Authorities treated him as unauthorizedly absent from March 15, 2017, for more than six months.
- Medical claims
- He cited anaemia, non-icterus hepatitis, and enteric fever, with documents recommending six months of bed rest.
- Removal date
- June 2018.
- Appeal outcome
- His departmental appeal was rejected in 2019.
- Court finding
- The removal was justified and was not excessive or disproportionate.