Central Reserve Police Force Law · Desertion · Court of Inquiry · Orderly Room · Judicial Trial

CRPF Rules 31–36A: Desertion, 60-Day Court of Inquiry, Orderly Room, Property Loss & Judicial Trials

Rules 31–36A of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 move from internal discipline into the statutory machinery for desertion, petty misconduct, service-record consequences, loss of Government property and judicial trial of offences under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949. Rule 31 is particularly important because it creates a mandatory process after sixty days of desertion, absence or overstayal of leave; Rule 36 then separates a judicial trial from an ordinary departmental enquiry.

The governing text for this article is the official CRPF compilation of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. For the immediately preceding disciplinary framework—Rule 27 departmental enquiry, suspension, appeal, revision and petitions—see our guide to CRPF Rules 26–30.

1. Rule 31 — desertion and absence without leave

Rule 31 applies where a member of the Force has become liable for trial under the provisions identified in the Rule for desertion, absence without leave or overstayal of leave and does not return voluntarily or is not apprehended within sixty days from commencement of the desertion, absence or overstayal.

Once the sixty-day condition is satisfied, the Commandant is required to assemble a Court of Inquiry. The Rule therefore establishes a statutory sequence. It is not enough merely to label an absentee a “deserter” in correspondence or in an appellate order.

2. The sixty-day period is part of the statutory trigger

The text of Rule 31 links the Court of Inquiry mechanism to a member who has not returned of his own free will and has not been apprehended within sixty days. This makes the dates critical. In any challenge, the record should identify: the first date of illegal absence, the sanctioned leave period if any, the date on which overstay began, whether the member returned voluntarily, whether he was apprehended, and the date on which the Court of Inquiry was convened.

The distinction can be decisive. A person who returns before sixty days may certainly face disciplinary consequences for unauthorised absence, but that is not the same as validly completing the Rule 31 deserter-declaration process.

3. Composition of the Rule 31 Court of Inquiry

The Commandant must assemble a Court of Inquiry consisting of at least one Gazetted Officer and two other members. The other two members may be superior or subordinate officers. The Court is to inquire into the desertion, absence or overstayal of leave and such connected matters as may properly be brought before it.

Because composition is prescribed by the Rule, the convening order and rank/status of each member should be verified. A legally deficient constitution of the Court can affect the validity of the Rule 31 process.

4. The Court must record evidence and findings

Rule 31(b) requires the Court of Inquiry to record evidence and its findings. The record is expressly made admissible in evidence in subsequent proceedings against the absentee. This gives the Court of Inquiry evidentiary significance, but it does not convert the inquiry itself into a punitive trial.

A defence audit should therefore obtain the full Court of Inquiry proceedings—not merely the final finding or the deserter roll. The evidence, convening order, composition, dates and findings must be examined together.

5. Publication in Force Order and declaration as deserter

After receipt of the findings, Rule 31(c) contemplates publication of the Court of Inquiry findings in Force Order and declaration of the absentee as a deserter from the date of illegal absence. Importantly, the Rule itself states that the member does not thereby cease to belong to the Force.

This final phrase is central. A deserter declaration is a statutory status for further action; it is not an automatic discharge, dismissal, removal or criminal conviction.

6. Kukheswar Saikia — a Rule 31 Court of Inquiry is not a trial

In Kukheswar Saikia v. Union of India, Gauhati High Court, decided on 20 June 2002, reported as (2003) 3 GLR 1, the Court drew a sharp distinction between a Rule 31 Court of Inquiry and a punitive proceeding. The Court held, in substance, that a Court of Inquiry under Rule 31 is neither a judicial trial nor a departmental proceeding and that punishment cannot be imposed merely because the deserter declaration has been made.

The practical consequence is important: if the department wants to impose a departmental penalty, it must establish the lawful disciplinary basis and follow the applicable procedure; if a judicial offence under the CRPF Act is prosecuted, the judicial-trial procedure must be followed. A Rule 31 declaration cannot substitute either route.

7. Rule 31 inquiry may proceed in the absentee’s absence

Kukheswar Saikia also recognised the practical nature of Rule 31. The Court of Inquiry is designed for a situation where the member is absent. Prior notice to the absentee before the Court of Inquiry is therefore not necessarily a condition precedent in the same manner as notice in a punitive departmental enquiry. That proposition should not be confused with the separate right to notice and hearing before a punishment is imposed through a disciplinary route.

8. Jogender — 33 days’ absence and a stigmatic “deserter” label

In Jogender v. Union of India, Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP No. 7493 of 2018, decided on 4 March 2020, the petitioner had remained absent for 33 days and returned voluntarily. The appellate authority nevertheless characterised him as a deserter and treated the conduct as grave misconduct.

The High Court noted the sixty-day structure of Rule 31 and the absence of the prescribed inquiry. Since the termination was founded on a stigmatic allegation of desertion rather than being a truly simpliciter termination, the punitive action could not be sustained without an enquiry complying with natural justice. The orders were set aside and reinstatement was directed, though without back wages.

9. Do not equate every unauthorised absence with desertion

Unauthorised absence, overstayal of leave, desertion and a formal Rule 31 deserter declaration are related but legally distinct concepts. The disciplinary authority must identify the exact misconduct alleged and the statutory route used. Loose terminology can create jurisdictional and natural-justice defects.

For pleading purposes, the challenge should ask: Was the case one of absence, overstayal, desertion, or a stigmatic discharge? Which section of the Act was invoked? Was Rule 31 followed? Was Rule 27 separately followed if a departmental penalty was imposed? Was there instead a judicial trial under Rule 36?

10. Rule 31 document checklist

• leave application and sanction/rejection order;
• movement order and duty roster;
• absence report and first date of illegal absence;
• communications directing the member to rejoin;
• postal/electronic proof of service of such communications;
• apprehension record, if any;
• date and proof of voluntary return, if any;
• Rule 31 Court of Inquiry convening order;
• rank/status of all three members of the Court;
• recorded evidence and exhibits;
• Court of Inquiry findings;
• Force Order publishing the findings;
• formal deserter declaration/deserter roll;
• warrant or apprehension documents, if issued;
• subsequent Rule 27 charge-sheet and enquiry record, if disciplinary action followed; and
• judicial-trial record if action was taken under Sections 9 or 10.

11. Rule 32 — Orderly Room proceedings for petty misconduct

Rule 32 deals with petty cases of misconduct and indiscipline. As far as possible, such cases are to be inquired into and disposed of in Orderly Room by an officer authorised to award petty punishment under Section 11(3) read with Rule 27 to a member of the Force subject to that officer’s authority.

The Rule contemplates Orderly Room inquiries on two or more fixed days in a week. This reflects the summary and unit-level nature of the mechanism, but it remains a statutory disciplinary process and cannot be used to impose a punishment outside the officer’s competence.

12. When the offence appears too serious for the officer

If the officer dealing with the matter considers that the misconduct calls for a punishment more severe than he is authorised to inflict, Rule 32 requires escalation. At headquarters, the accused is to be brought before the Commandant; if away from headquarters, the record with recommendations is to be forwarded to the Commandant for orders.

This is a competence safeguard. A summary forum cannot enlarge its jurisdiction merely because the facts appear clear.

13. Orderly Room proceedings must be recorded

Rule 32 expressly requires proceedings of such inquiries to be recorded in the Orderly Room Register. Where a petty punishment is challenged, the register entry is therefore a primary record. The file should reveal the accusation, the authority, the proceeding, the punishment and the date of disposal.

14. Rule 33 — entry of punishment in Service Roll

Rule 33 requires every punishment, whether judicial or departmental, to be entered in the Service Roll of the offender. This provision can have consequences far beyond the immediate punishment because service records may later be relevant to promotion, posting, retention, selection and assessment of past conduct under other applicable rules.

The Service Roll entry must accurately reflect the final operative order. If a punishment is set aside, modified or reduced in appeal, revision or judicial review, the consequential correction of the Service Roll should also be sought and verified.

15. Rule 34 — report on judicial proceedings

Where a member of the Force is convicted by a Court of Law, Rule 34 requires the Commandant to submit a brief to the Deputy Inspector General. The Rule is administrative in form, but it links the judicial outcome to the service hierarchy.

A conviction may separately trigger consequences under the CRPF Act, Rule 27 or other applicable service provisions. The Rule 34 report itself should not be mistaken for the punishment order.

16. Rule 35 — loss or serious damage to arms, ammunition and Government property

Rule 35 prescribes a Court of Inquiry mechanism for loss or serious damage to arms, ammunition or other Government property above the monetary thresholds stated in the Rule. The official rule text presently carries historical threshold figures—Rs. 100 for arms and ammunition and Rs. 500 for other Government property for triggering the formal Court of Inquiry mechanism stated in sub-rule (1).

Those figures appear anomalously low by modern standards, but they are part of the published rule text. They should not be casually replaced by assumed contemporary amounts. At the same time, the later sub-rules expressly refer to the competence of authorities under the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules or other orders notified from time to time. A current case therefore requires both the text of Rule 35 and the current financial-delegation framework.

17. Composition of the Rule 35 Court of Inquiry

The Court is to consist of the Assistant Commandant, if available, or the senior superior officer present as President, along with two superior or subordinate officers as members. The Court records evidence and submits findings in Form A.F.A. 2 to the Commandant.

Where personal liability or recovery is contemplated, the record should be examined for evidence of custody, negligence, causation, valuation and the member’s opportunity to answer any adverse material used in a subsequent punitive or recovery proceeding.

18. Write-off powers under Rule 35 are structured by value

Rule 35 then distributes write-off authority according to the value of the loss or damage. The Commandant may act within the ceiling stated in the Rule; higher amounts move to the DIG and thereafter through the DIG to the IG or DG within the competence prescribed by the financial delegation in force.

Because write-off of Government loss and disciplinary liability are conceptually different, a decision to write off the loss does not automatically determine whether an individual is disciplinarily blameworthy. Conversely, a disciplinary finding does not itself establish the correct accounting treatment of the loss.

19. Small-value loss and summary enquiry

Where the loss or damage does not exceed the lower figures stated in Rule 35(6), the Rule provides for the Commandant to deal with the matter in Orderly Room after a summary enquiry by a Gazetted Officer. Again, the published figures are historical and should be read with any valid current amendments or financial orders applicable to the specific date.

20. Rule 35 defence audit

Issue	Record to verify	Legal question
Custody	Issue/handing-over register	Was the property actually entrusted to the member?
Loss/damage	Incident report, technical inspection	Was the damage accidental, negligent or deliberate?
Valuation	Condemnation/value certificate	Was the correct financial authority invoked?
Inquiry	Convening order, evidence, A.F.A. 2 findings	Was the Rule 35 procedure followed?
Recovery/punishment	Show cause, Rule 27 record, final order	Was financial write-off wrongly treated as proof of personal misconduct?

21. Rule 36 — judicial trials under Sections 9 and 10

Rule 36 marks an important boundary. Trials relating to offences specified in Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act are judicial trials, not departmental enquiries under Rule 27. The Rule states that such trials are to follow criminal procedure.

The official CRPF website likewise describes judicial trials under Sections 9 and 10 read with Rule 36 and Rules 36E–36J and states that the method is akin to a summons trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure framework. See the CRPF’s official summary of the Act and Rules.

22. Srikand Prasad — Rule 36 trial is a criminal judicial proceeding

In Srikand Prasad v. Union of India, Gauhati High Court, decided on 19 July 2006, reported as (2007) 1 GLR 221, the Division Bench examined the nature of trial under Section 10 of the CRPF Act. The Court held that a member may be tried by a Judicial Magistrate First Class or, where lawfully invested with magisterial power under Section 16(2), by a Commandant or Assistant Commandant.

The Court further held that the trial remains a judicial trial and the criminal-procedure framework governs it. It also held, under the then-operative Code of Criminal Procedure regime, that appellate/revisional remedies were available through the ordinary criminal-court hierarchy rather than through the Rule 28 departmental appeal.

23. Rule 28 departmental appeal is not the appeal from a Rule 36 conviction

This distinction is critical in practice. Rule 28 is an appeal against specified disciplinary punishments. A conviction entered in a judicial trial under the CRPF Act is governed by the criminal procedural appellate/revisional framework, subject to the law applicable to the date and nature of the proceeding. Filing only a departmental representation against a judicial conviction can therefore be a serious procedural error.

24. The old CrPC references in the Rule book require date-sensitive reading

The official CRPF rule compilation continues to contain historical references to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, while later judicial decisions and the CRPF’s own current website describe the operative trial process through the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 framework. Since the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024, present-day CRPF judicial proceedings require a further date-specific analysis of BNSS, its repeal-and-savings provision in Section 531, the stage at which the proceeding commenced and any applicable special-law provision or notification.

It would therefore be unsafe to quote an old CrPC section number mechanically in a current CRPF case. The correct procedural provision must be mapped to the proceeding actually before the Court or empowered officer.

25. Rule 36(b) — place of confinement after imprisonment

Rule 36(b) provides that persons sentenced to imprisonment under the Act are ordinarily to be confined in the nearest jail. The proviso permits confinement in the Quarter Guard where the sentence is for one month or less, or where the Commandant is satisfied that difficulty of transport and escort to the nearest jail makes that course desirable.

The order and custody record should therefore disclose the sentence, the place of confinement and, where the exception is used, the factual basis for invoking it.

26. Rule 36A — prescribed authority under Section 16(2)

Rule 36A identifies the Commandant as the prescribed authority for the proviso to Section 16(2) of the CRPF Act. In the situations contemplated by that proviso, the Commandant may direct inquiry into or trial of the offence by an ordinary criminal court.

This provision must be read with Section 16(2) itself and with the jurisdiction-adjustment rules that follow in Chapter VI-A. The next article in this series will examine Rules 36B–36J in detail.

27. Departmental enquiry versus judicial trial

Feature	Rule 27 departmental enquiry	Rule 36 judicial trial
Nature	Service-disciplinary	Criminal/judicial
Primary source	Section 11 read with Rule 27	Sections 9/10 read with Rules 36 onward
Decision-maker	Disciplinary authority/Enquiry Officer	Ordinary Judicial Magistrate or properly empowered CRPF officer acting with magisterial power
Procedure	Rule 27 procedure and natural justice	Applicable criminal-procedure law, subject to CRPF special provisions
Ordinary remedy	Rule 28 appeal, Rule 29 revision where applicable	Criminal appellate/revisional route under the procedural law applicable to the proceeding

28. Common litigation errors under Rules 31–36A

• declaring a member a deserter before the Rule 31 sixty-day trigger or despite voluntary return;
• failing to convene the prescribed three-member Court of Inquiry;
• using a Rule 31 Court of Inquiry as if it were itself a punitive trial;
• imposing a major penalty on the basis of deserter status without a lawful disciplinary or judicial proceeding;
• allowing an Orderly Room officer to impose punishment beyond his competence;
• failing to preserve or produce the Orderly Room Register entry;
• leaving an invalidated punishment uncorrected in the Service Roll;
• treating a Rule 34 conviction report as the punishment itself;
• assuming the historical Rule 35 monetary figures can be informally modernised without legal authority;
• conflating write-off of Government loss with proof of personal misconduct;
• treating a Rule 36 judicial trial as a Rule 27 departmental enquiry;
• filing a Rule 28 service appeal against a judicial conviction instead of invoking the applicable criminal remedy; and
• mechanically citing repealed CrPC section numbers in a post-1 July 2024 proceeding without analysing BNSS and savings.

29. Frequently asked questions

After how many days can Rule 31 be invoked for a deserter declaration?

The Rule 31 Court of Inquiry mechanism is tied to the member not returning voluntarily or not being apprehended within sixty days from commencement of the desertion, absence or overstayal of leave.

Does a Rule 31 deserter declaration automatically dismiss a CRPF member?

No. Rule 31 expressly states that the member does not thereby cease to belong to the Force. A lawful punitive process must follow on the appropriate statutory basis.

Can the Rule 31 Court of Inquiry itself impose punishment?

No. Kukheswar Saikia treats the Court of Inquiry as distinct from a judicial trial and a departmental enquiry. Its findings can be evidentiary material, but punishment requires the proper subsequent proceeding.

What is Rule 32 used for?

Rule 32 provides an Orderly Room procedure for petty misconduct and indiscipline before an officer competent to award the relevant petty punishment.

Must punishment be entered in the Service Roll?

Yes. Rule 33 requires judicial and departmental punishments to be entered in the Service Roll. If the punishment is later set aside or modified, the service record should be consequentially corrected.

What is the purpose of Rule 35?

Rule 35 regulates inquiry and write-off procedure for loss or serious damage to arms, ammunition and other Government property, with prescribed inquiry composition and financial-authority thresholds.

Is a Rule 36 trial a departmental enquiry?

No. It is a judicial trial relating to offences under Sections 9 or 10 of the CRPF Act and is governed by the applicable criminal-procedure framework subject to the special CRPF provisions.

Does BNSS now matter in a CRPF judicial trial?

Yes. BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024. In a present proceeding, counsel should identify the date of commencement, the effect of Section 531 repeal and savings, and the corresponding BNSS provision instead of mechanically relying on old CrPC numbering.

30. Litigation strategy

A challenge arising from Rules 31–36A should first identify the exact legal character of the action. If the dispute is about a deserter declaration, audit Rule 31. If it concerns petty punishment, examine Rule 32 and competence. If it concerns loss of property, separate financial write-off, recovery and disciplinary liability. If it concerns conviction under Sections 9 or 10, treat the matter as a criminal judicial proceeding and preserve the correct appellate or revisional remedy.

This classification prevents one of the most common errors in CRPF litigation: using the language and remedies of departmental service law for a judicial proceeding, or conversely treating an administrative Court of Inquiry as if it had itself determined criminal guilt.

31. Conclusion

Rules 31–36A create a bridge between CRPF internal discipline and criminal adjudication. Rule 31 establishes a mandatory evidentiary and administrative process for prolonged absence but does not itself punish the member. Rule 32 provides a controlled summary mechanism for petty misconduct. Rules 33 and 34 ensure service-record and command-level consequences are recorded. Rule 35 regulates loss and damage to Government property. Rule 36 then moves into a separate judicial sphere for offences under Sections 9 and 10, while Rule 36A identifies the Commandant as the prescribed authority for directing appropriate cases to the ordinary criminal court under Section 16(2).

The next article will cover CRPF Rules 36B–36J: place of trial, adjustment of jurisdiction between ordinary criminal courts and empowered CRPF authorities, notice to the Commandant, transfer of the accused and the post-trial reporting framework.