• Adv Govind Bali
• CRPF Law, Service Law
• August 22, 2026

Unauthorized absence and overstay of sanctioned leave are among the most frequently litigated service-law issues in the Central Reserve Police Force. The legal difficulty is that three different concepts are often treated as if they were the same: absence without leave, overstay of leave, and desertion. They are not identical.

A CRPF member may certainly face disciplinary action for remaining absent without authority. But an absence does not automatically become desertion, a declaration under Rule 31 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 is not itself a punishment, and dismissal or removal ordinarily requires compliance with the disciplinary procedure under Rule 27. Medical incapacity, communication with the unit, voluntary return, past conduct, duration of absence, service record and the proportionality of punishment can all become decisive in litigation.

This article explains the litigation framework for CRPF personnel facing allegations of unauthorized absence, overstayal of leave or desertion, including the important decisions in Kukheswar Saikia v. Union of India, Jogender v. Union of India, Harish Chander v. Union of India, Vivek Kumar v. Union of India and Gurbir Singh v. Union of India.

1. The starting point: absence, overstay and desertion are different

The words are often used loosely in departmental correspondence, but legally they perform different functions.

• Unauthorized absence ordinarily means absence from the appointed place of duty without sanctioned leave or permission.
• Overstay of leave occurs where leave was initially sanctioned but the member fails to report after the sanctioned period expires.
• Desertion is a more serious legal characterisation. Rule 31 creates a specific statutory mechanism involving a 60-day period, a Court of Inquiry and publication of findings in Force Orders.

Therefore, every deserter is absent, but every absentee is not necessarily a deserter. This distinction is central to a large number of CRPF writ petitions.

2. Rule 31: the 60-day statutory trigger

Rule 31 applies where a member becomes liable for trial for desertion, absence without leave or overstayal of leave and does not return of his own free will or is not apprehended within sixty days from commencement of the desertion, absence or overstay. The Commandant is then required to assemble a Court of Inquiry consisting of at least one Gazetted Officer and two other members.

The Court of Inquiry records evidence and findings. The record is admissible in subsequent proceedings. The Commandant may then publish the findings in Force Orders and declare the absentee a deserter from the date of illegal absence.

Crucially, Rule 31 itself states that the person does not thereby cease to belong to the Force. That textual safeguard is extremely important. A deserter declaration is not the same thing as dismissal from service.

For a detailed rule-by-rule explanation, see our earlier article on CRPF Rules 31–36A: Desertion, Court of Inquiry and Judicial Trials.

3. Rule 31 is not itself a punishment

The Gauhati High Court in Kukheswar Saikia v. Union of India explained an important principle: a Court of Inquiry under Rule 31 is neither a criminal trial nor a disciplinary proceeding. A person cannot be punished merely because the Court of Inquiry has declared him a deserter.

The judgment emphasised that a Rule 31 declaration cannot be converted into an in-absentia punishment. If the authorities wish to impose service punishment such as removal or dismissal for misconduct arising from the absence, the legally prescribed disciplinary route has to be followed.

This means that in litigation the first question should always be: what exactly was the legal basis of the punishment? Was dismissal imposed after a proper Rule 27 enquiry, or was the deserter declaration itself treated as if it automatically terminated service?

4. Rule 27 and departmental punishment for unauthorized absence

Rule 27 contains the disciplinary procedure for punishments under the CRPF framework. Where dismissal or removal is proposed against a Constable or other member for unauthorized absence, a formal departmental enquiry ordinarily becomes critical.

A sustainable enquiry should, depending on the applicable procedure, involve proper communication of the charge, reasonable opportunity to participate, examination of departmental evidence, opportunity to cross-examine, opportunity to produce defence evidence, consideration of the member’s explanation and a reasoned decision by the competent disciplinary authority.

Our dedicated guide to the disciplinary procedure is available here: CRPF Rule 27 Departmental Enquiry, Appeal and Revision.

5. Is every unauthorized absence wilful misconduct?

No. The existence of absence and the existence of culpable misconduct are related but separate questions.

The Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178 held in the service-law context that absence cannot simply be treated as misconduct unless the element of wilfulness is established. This principle has been applied by courts while examining CRPF absence cases.

The practical inquiry is therefore not merely: Was the member absent? It is also: Why was the member absent, what did he do during that period, did he communicate, and was the absence deliberate?

Relevant evidence may include:

• sanctioned leave orders and leave extension requests;
• medical certificates and hospital records;
• admission/discharge summaries;
• diagnostic reports and prescriptions;
• letters, faxes, emails or other communications sent to the unit;
• postal receipts and delivery tracking;
• records showing attempts to report back;
• evidence of accident, family emergency or psychiatric treatment;
• past service record and prior absence punishments.

6. Medical grounds: when can illness justify absence?

A medical certificate does not automatically erase unauthorized absence, but genuine medical incapacity can materially change the legal character of the case.

In Vivek Kumar v. Union of India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with a CRPF member whose absence followed injury and prolonged medical treatment. The Court found that the authorities had mechanically treated the absence as defiance without properly considering whether the member was actually incapacitated. The Court held that the record did not justify treating the case as deliberate desertion and found dismissal shockingly disproportionate. The deserter/proclaimed-person declaration and dismissal were set aside, with reinstatement, continuity and consequential monetary relief.

The judgment is important because it demonstrates that medical evidence must be actually evaluated, not merely acknowledged and ignored. A disciplinary authority must distinguish between incapacity and deliberate abandonment of duty.

7. But medical grounds can fail if the member does not communicate

The opposite result is also possible. Courts repeatedly stress that CRPF personnel serve in a disciplined force and are expected to keep the employer informed.

In Harish Chander v. Union of India, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld disciplinary action where the member remained absent for hundreds of days, failed to inform the department of his changed address and did not maintain meaningful communication. The departmental authorities had repeatedly sent notices to the recorded address. The Court held that the employer was not required to undertake an impossible search for a member who had failed to update his whereabouts.

Similarly, in Gurbir Singh v. Union of India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a prolonged overstay where repeated directions to report and supply medical documents were not obeyed. The Court emphasised that medical pleas must be supported by credible contemporaneous material and conduct consistent with an intention to resume service.

The litigation lesson is clear: illness plus communication is legally much stronger than illness alleged only after dismissal.

8. Returning voluntarily before 60 days can be crucial

Rule 31 expressly refers to a member who does not return of his own free will or is not apprehended within sixty days. A voluntary return can therefore be highly relevant.

In Jogender v. Union of India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with a recruit who had left for his marriage and returned voluntarily. The Court noted that the serious label of “deserter” had been used without the requisite Rule 31 process and held the termination excessively harsh on the facts. Reinstatement was ordered, though back wages were denied.

This case supports two practical propositions:

1. voluntary return is relevant to whether the conduct truly demonstrates abandonment of service; and
2. a stigmatic finding of desertion should not be casually attached without the statutory process.

9. Animus deserendi: intention matters

The distinction between absence without leave and desertion has long been associated with the member’s intention. The Supreme Court in Captain Virendra Kumar v. Chief of the Army Staff, (1986) 2 SCC 217, while interpreting analogous military-law concepts, explained that desertion involves an intention to remain away permanently or otherwise abandon service obligations.

CRPF courts have relied upon this distinction while scrutinising Rule 31 action. A person undergoing verified hospitalization, repeatedly seeking extension and later attempting to join presents a very different factual picture from a person who disappears for months, ignores repeated notices, gives no address and makes no attempt to return.

10. Can an ex parte Rule 27 enquiry be valid?

Yes. An ex parte enquiry is not automatically illegal.

If the charge-sheet and notices are properly served or reasonably attempted at the recorded address, the member is given real opportunities to participate, and the member deliberately remains away, the department may proceed ex parte.

However, merely printing and dispatching notices may not always be enough where the department knows the member is hospitalized or there is evidence that service was ineffective. Courts examine whether the opportunity was real and reasonable.

Therefore, in a challenge to an ex parte dismissal, the record of service becomes vital:

• Where was each notice sent?
• Was the address correct?
• Was the member known to be in hospital?
• Were notices returned undelivered?
• Did the unit know a new address?
• Was the enquiry report supplied?
• Was reasonable time given to respond?

11. Proportionality: dismissal is not automatic

Even where unauthorized absence is proved, dismissal or removal is not automatically beyond judicial scrutiny.

The doctrine of proportionality, explained by the Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, permits intervention where punishment is so disproportionate to the misconduct that it shocks the conscience or reflects irrationality.

Factors usually relevant to proportionality include:

• length of unauthorized absence;
• whether leave was originally sanctioned;
• whether the member voluntarily returned;
• medical or family emergency;
• whether intimation was given;
• whether the member ignored direct orders to report;
• whether the absence affected operational deployment;
• length and quality of prior service;
• previous punishments for absence;
• whether the member was a habitual absentee;
• whether lesser punishment was considered.

Courts are substantially less sympathetic where the member has a repeated history of overstay or absence. In Harish Chander, the petitioner’s prolonged absence and past punishments weighed heavily against him.

12. One-time emergency vs habitual absenteeism

This distinction repeatedly determines outcomes.

A single absence caused by a marriage, accident, childbirth complication, acute illness or serious family emergency may justify a more proportionate response, especially where the member returns and has an otherwise satisfactory record.

By contrast, repeated unauthorized absence after earlier punishments, failure to obey recall notices and failure to furnish supporting records may justify severe punishment in a disciplined paramilitary force.

Thus, a writ petition should never present only the number of days absent. It should present the entire service history.

13. Can Rule 31 desertion and Rule 27 disciplinary proceedings coexist?

They can operate in sequence, but they serve different purposes.

Rule 31 permits the Force to record the fact and circumstances of prolonged absence and formally declare the absentee a deserter after the prescribed process. The Rule 31 record may be used as evidence in later proceedings.

Rule 27, on the other hand, provides the disciplinary process through which service punishment may be imposed for misconduct.

Accordingly:

• a Rule 31 Court of Inquiry is not a substitute for a disciplinary enquiry;
• a Rule 31 declaration does not itself terminate membership of the Force;
• the disciplinary authority must still independently consider the charge, defence and evidence;
• medical and other explanations cannot be ignored merely because a deserter declaration exists.

14. Can the department call someone a deserter before 60 days?

Where the department seeks to rely specifically on the statutory Rule 31 deserter mechanism, the 60-day structure and Court of Inquiry become material. A casual administrative description of somebody as absent is different from a formal declaration carrying the statutory consequences of Rule 31.

Jogender illustrates the danger of attaching the stigmatic deserter label without following the required procedure.

15. What if the member returns after being declared a deserter?

Rule 31 itself says that a deserter does not cease to belong to the Force merely because of the declaration. Therefore, return does not become legally meaningless.

Once the member returns or is apprehended, the authorities must determine what further lawful action is required. The Rule 31 record may be evidence, but punishment must still be supported by the proper legal process.

16. Appeal and revision against dismissal/removal

A member punished under Rule 27 should ordinarily examine the departmental appellate and revisional remedies immediately.

Grounds may include:

• charge not proved by evidence;
• absence not wilful;
• medical record ignored;
• Rule 31 procedure not followed;
• desertion wrongly equated with ordinary absence;
• effective opportunity of defence denied;
• enquiry conducted ex parte despite known incapacity;
• punishment disproportionate;
• past service record ignored;
• similarly placed personnel treated differently;
• appellate authority passing a non-speaking order.

The broader dismissal procedure is covered separately in our article CRPF Dismissal or Removal from Service: Rule 27, Appeal, Revision and Reinstatement.

17. When can a High Court interfere?

Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is not a complete rehearing of the case. Courts generally examine the legality of the decision-making process.

Interference becomes more likely where:

• mandatory statutory procedure was violated;
• findings are based on no evidence;
• material medical or other defence evidence was ignored;
• the finding of wilfulness is unsupported;
• Rule 31 was mechanically invoked;
• effective service and natural justice were denied;
• punishment is shockingly disproportionate;
• competent authority did not apply its own mind.

Courts ordinarily show substantial deference to disciplinary decisions involving uniformed forces. A successful petition therefore requires demonstrable illegality, perversity, procedural unfairness or disproportion rather than a mere request for sympathy.

18. Reinstatement: does success mean automatic back wages?

No. Reinstatement and back wages are separate issues.

In Jogender, reinstatement was ordered but back wages were denied. In other cases, depending on the nature of the illegality and the employee’s conduct, courts have granted continuity and consequential benefits. Vivek Kumar is an example where more extensive monetary relief was directed on the facts before the Court.

Therefore, relief may include one or more of the following:

• quashing of deserter declaration;
• quashing of dismissal/removal order;
• reinstatement;
• continuity of service;
• restoration of seniority;
• notional benefits;
• arrears/back wages in full or part;
• interest in exceptional cases;
• remand to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of punishment.

19. Case comparison: why outcomes differ

Case	Key facts	Litigation principle
Kukheswar Saikia v. UOI	Rule 31 declaration followed by disciplinary action	Rule 31 COI is not itself trial/punishment; deserter declaration alone cannot substitute disciplinary process.
Jogender v. UOI (2020)	Short absence for marriage; voluntary return; stigmatic deserter treatment	Termination set aside; Rule 31 safeguards and proportionality matter; reinstatement without back wages.
Harish Chander v. UOI (2025)	326 days absence; poor communication; prior OSL punishments	Court upheld strict disciplinary approach; habitual absence and failure to communicate weaken challenge.
Vivek Kumar v. UOI (reported 2026)	Accident, medical treatment, hospitalization; absence treated as desertion	Medical evidence and wilfulness must be evaluated; mechanical Rule 31 invocation and disproportionate dismissal were set aside.
Gurbir Singh v. UOI (2026)	Long OSL; repeated directions; inadequate medical compliance	Medical plea is not enough where the member fails to report, furnish documents or obey repeated directions.

20. Documents required to challenge CRPF absence/desertion punishment

A litigation file should ordinarily contain:

1. appointment/enrolment and service particulars;
2. sanctioned leave order;
3. leave extension application, if any;
4. all medical records in chronological order;
5. proof of communication with the unit;
6. all recall notices and postal envelopes;
7. Rule 31 Court of Inquiry order/findings;
8. Force Order declaring deserter;
9. arrest warrant, if issued;
10. charge memorandum under Rule 27;
11. Enquiry Officer appointment order;
12. prosecution witness statements;
13. enquiry report;
14. representation against enquiry report;
15. dismissal/removal order;
16. appeal order;
17. revision order;
18. past service record and earlier punishments;
19. documents showing attempts to resume duty.

21. Common mistakes in CRPF absence cases

• Assuming a medical certificate alone is enough. Courts examine whether the illness truly prevented reporting or communication.
• Not updating the department about address or hospitalisation. This can make an ex parte enquiry difficult to challenge.
• Ignoring Rule 31’s 60-day structure. A statutory deserter declaration requires the prescribed process.
• Confusing the COI with disciplinary punishment. They are legally distinct.
• Failing to use appeal/revision effectively. Medical evidence and procedural defects should be raised at the earliest available stage.
• Relying only on sympathy. A writ challenge needs legal grounds: wilfulness, procedure, evidence, proportionality and jurisdiction.

22. Frequently asked questions

Can CRPF dismiss a member merely for overstaying leave?

Unauthorized overstay can constitute misconduct, but dismissal is not automatic. The disciplinary process, the explanation for absence, past service record and proportionality of punishment must be examined.

After how many days can a CRPF member be declared deserter?

Rule 31 operates where the member does not voluntarily return or is not apprehended within sixty days from commencement of desertion, absence or overstayal of leave, followed by the prescribed Court of Inquiry process.

Does declaration as deserter automatically terminate CRPF service?

No. Rule 31 expressly states that the person does not thereby cease to belong to the Force.

Can medical illness prevent dismissal?

It can be a powerful defence where credible contemporaneous evidence proves that the absence was not wilful. But medical documents should be supported by timely communication and conduct showing intention to return.

Can CRPF conduct an ex parte departmental enquiry?

Yes, where adequate opportunity has been given and the member deliberately does not participate. The validity of service of notices and actual fairness of the opportunity remain reviewable.

Can a High Court order reinstatement?

Yes, where dismissal is vitiated by illegality, procedural unfairness, unsupported findings or shockingly disproportionate punishment. Back wages are not automatic.

23. Conclusion

CRPF absence litigation cannot be decided by counting days alone. The controlling questions are whether the absence was wilful, whether Rule 31 was correctly invoked, whether the member voluntarily returned, whether genuine medical or family circumstances were considered, whether the Rule 27 enquiry was fair, and whether the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct and past service record.

The strongest cases are built on a precise chronology supported by medical records, communications, Rule 31 documents, departmental enquiry records and the member’s service history. The weakest cases are those where the member disappears, ignores repeated notices and produces medical explanations only after dismissal.

---

Legal information disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and discussion of CRPF service law. It is not an advertisement, solicitation, assurance of outcome or substitute for advice on the facts and records of an individual case.