"Fighting for Justice: A Soldier’s Legal Battle Against Dismissal"

 


Introduction

This case revolves around Ravi Kumar Singh, a former constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who was removed from service due to alleged misconduct. Singh approached the Patna High Court, seeking the quashing of his dismissal order and reinstatement with full benefits. However, the court upheld his termination, citing procedural lapses on his part and emphasizing the importance of discipline in armed forces. This case sheds light on employment law, due process in disciplinary actions, and the expectations from personnel in uniformed services.

Background of the Case

Ravi Kumar Singh was appointed as a constable (general duty) on June 20, 2012, and was posted under the 205 Cobra Battalion at Barachatti, Gaya, Bihar. His dismissal stemmed from an incident on May 28, 2016, where he allegedly:

  1. Left the battalion premises without proper authorization.

  2. Returned in an intoxicated state and verbally abused his superiors and colleagues.

  3. Climbed onto the roof of a four-story building and threatened to commit suicide.

Following this incident, a charge memo dated August 4, 2016, was issued against him, and an inquiry was conducted. Based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority exercised its power under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, and removed Singh from service through an order dated August 23, 2017.

Legal Proceedings and Arguments

Singh challenged the dismissal, arguing that:

  • The inquiry was conducted behind his back without considering his defense.

  • He had applied for an 'out-pass' before leaving the premises, which was recommended by a superior officer.

  • He was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report, violating principles of natural justice as established in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727.

The respondents (CRPF authorities) countered by stating that:

  • Singh had left the camp without obtaining proper approval.

  • His actions disrupted discipline and morale in the battalion, making his continued service undesirable.

  • Despite being given opportunities, he failed to submit a proper written defense or file an appeal with the correct authority as per the rules.

Court's Observations

The court evaluated the claims based on legal precedents and procedural compliance. Key observations included:

  1. Failure to Follow Protocol: Singh did not properly apply for an ‘out-pass’ as per official procedures. His application was merely forwarded but never formally sanctioned.

  2. Lack of Response to Charge Memo: Singh did not submit a written defense denying the allegations. The court found that his alleged response (Annexure-6) was undated and lacked any reference to the charge memo, making it unreliable.

  3. Wrongly Filed Appeal: Singh sent his appeal to the DIG, Range, Patna, instead of the designated appellate authority, DIG (Admin), New Delhi. This procedural mistake led to his appeal not being considered.

  4. No Violation of Natural Justice: Citing Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation & Anr. v. K.C. Rahi (2008) 11 SCC 502, the court ruled that Singh had waived his right to challenge procedural violations by failing to participate in the disciplinary process.

  5. Importance of Discipline in Armed Forces: The court referenced Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB (2022 SCC OnLine SC 478), reinforcing that members of armed forces must uphold high standards of discipline, and serious lapses warrant strict action.

Final Verdict

The Patna High Court dismissed Singh’s petition, ruling that his removal from service was justified and did not require judicial intervention. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that:

  • In disciplined forces, strict adherence to rules is paramount.

  • Employees who fail to use available remedies within the system cannot later claim procedural injustice.

  • Courts should not interfere in disciplinary actions unless clear violations of law or rights occur.

Conclusion

This case serves as a crucial reminder for government employees, especially those in uniformed services, to adhere to procedural rules when contesting disciplinary actions. It also highlights how courts balance individual rights with institutional discipline, ensuring fairness while maintaining order within essential services.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTg1MjMjMjAxOCMxI04=-AFfhTU27X6M=