Introduction:

In Shri M. Appa Rao v. Union of India represented by its Director General of Police (DG), Central Reserve Police Force & Others, W.P. No. 15719 of 2021, the Telangana High Court delivered a significant judgment concerning the rights of the family members of a missing government employee. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin held that the family of a missing constable belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force could not be deprived of service and pensionary benefits merely because the father of the missing employee had not separately lodged a missing complaint with the police. The case revolved around a CRPF constable named M. Srikanth, who disappeared in 2015 while undergoing training at the Group Centre of the CRPF located at Jharoda Kalan. His father, M. Appa Rao, later approached the High Court seeking justice after the CRPF authorities treated his son as a deserter and passed an ex parte removal order in 2017. The father argued that his son had not deserted his duties but had instead gone missing while under the control and supervision of the CRPF authorities during training. Despite this, the authorities initiated departmental proceedings and removed him from service. As a result, the family was denied pension and other service benefits. The High Court was therefore called upon to determine whether the departmental action was legally sustainable and whether the absence of a separate FIR lodged by the family could justify denial of benefits to the legal heirs of the missing employee. After examining the factual circumstances and the applicable legal principles, the Court ultimately ruled in favour of the petitioner and directed the authorities to process and disburse the admissible service and pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of the missing constable.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, M. Appa Rao, approached the High Court through a writ petition seeking quashing of the order passed by the CRPF authorities removing his son from service and denying the family the service benefits that would ordinarily accrue to the legal heirs of a government employee. The petitioner contended that his son, M. Srikanth, had joined the Central Reserve Police Force and had served the organization with dedication. During his tenure, he suffered a serious injury resulting in the amputation of his left leg. Because of this disability, he was declared unfit for combat duties. However, the Rehabilitation Board recommended that he be allowed to continue in service until he completed ten years, which would enable him to qualify for pensionary benefits. It was also recommended that he undergo vocational training. Pursuant to this recommendation, Srikanth was sent to the Group Centre of the CRPF at Jharoda Kalan to participate in a computer training program. According to the petitioner, his son was staying at the training centre under the supervision of CRPF authorities when he suddenly went missing on June 1, 2015. When the absence was noticed during roll call, the CRPF authorities themselves conducted a search in the nearby areas including bus stands and railway stations but were unable to trace him. The petitioner emphasized that his son was under the custody, command, and supervision of the CRPF authorities at the time he disappeared. Therefore, the responsibility for investigating the circumstances surrounding his disappearance primarily lay with the force itself. The petitioner further pointed out that the CRPF authorities had themselves lodged a complaint regarding the disappearance of Srikanth at Baba Haridas Nagar Police Station. However, instead of treating him as a missing person and pursuing further investigation, the authorities subsequently declared him a deserter and initiated proceedings under the CRPF Act, 1949. The petitioner argued that such action was unjustified and arbitrary because there was no evidence suggesting that Srikanth had deliberately absconded from duty. On the contrary, all available facts indicated that he had simply gone missing while under the command of the CRPF authorities. The petitioner also challenged the ex parte departmental enquiry conducted by the authorities. He argued that the enquiry was fundamentally flawed because it was conducted in the absence of the accused employee who could not participate or defend himself due to his unexplained disappearance. Since even the arrest warrant issued against Srikanth could not be executed, it was unreasonable for the authorities to conclude that he had deserted his duties. The petitioner further contended that the authorities had wrongly denied service benefits to the family on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a separate missing complaint at the police station in his native place. According to the petitioner, such a requirement was unnecessary because the CRPF authorities themselves had already lodged a complaint regarding the disappearance of Srikanth. Therefore, insisting on another FIR from the family was merely a technical excuse to deny legitimate benefits. On these grounds, the petitioner requested the Court to quash the removal order and direct the authorities to release the service and pensionary benefits due to the family of the missing constable.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, represented by the Union of India and the authorities of the Central Reserve Police Force, opposed the writ petition and defended the actions taken by the department. The respondents contended that the constable had remained absent from duty without authorization and had therefore been treated as a deserter in accordance with the applicable service rules. According to the respondents, after Srikanth failed to report for roll call on June 1, 2015 at the Group Centre in Jharoda Kalan, immediate steps were taken to locate him. Search operations were conducted in nearby locations such as bus stands and railway stations. When these efforts failed to yield any results, the authorities treated the incident as a case of desertion and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The respondents submitted that a written complaint had been lodged with the police at Baba Haridas Nagar Police Station regarding the disappearance of the constable. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under the CRPF Act, 1949 and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. However, since the constable could not be located either at his place of duty or at his native residence, the warrant of arrest remained unexecuted. In these circumstances, the authorities conducted an ex parte departmental enquiry and ultimately passed an order removing him from service for alleged misconduct. The respondents also argued that the claim for family pension and other service benefits could not be processed because the petitioner had not lodged a missing complaint with the police in his local jurisdiction. According to them, such a complaint was necessary to establish the legal status of the employee as a missing person. They further contended that it was necessary to verify the identity of the rightful legal heirs who would be entitled to receive the benefits. Until such verification was completed, the authorities maintained that it would not be appropriate to release any monetary benefits. On these grounds, the respondents requested the Court to dismiss the writ petition.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the submissions of both parties and examining the material placed on record, the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner. The Court framed two key questions for determination: whether the ex parte removal order passed against the missing constable was legally sustainable and whether service benefits could be denied in the absence of a separate missing complaint filed by the father. Addressing the first issue, the Court observed that Srikanth had gone missing while he was undergoing training at the CRPF Group Centre in Jharoda Kalan. Therefore, he was under the control and command of the CRPF authorities at the time of his disappearance. The Court emphasized that this was not a case where the constable had gone missing during his personal time outside the training facility. Instead, he disappeared from within the premises and jurisdiction of the CRPF establishment. In such circumstances, the responsibility to account for his disappearance primarily lay with the authorities. The Court further noted that the CRPF authorities themselves had lodged a complaint with the police regarding his disappearance. Despite this, no evidence had been produced to demonstrate that he had been traced or that he had deliberately absconded from duty. The Court also observed that there was no CCTV footage or other documentary evidence to support the allegation that the constable had deserted his post. In the absence of such evidence, the Court held that the ex parte departmental enquiry conducted by the authorities could not justify the serious penalty of removal from service. The Court also criticized the authorities for attempting to avoid their responsibility by treating the missing constable as a deserter. The Bench observed that such an approach was unfair to both the employee and his family. Regarding the second issue, the Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the father’s failure to file a separate missing complaint justified denial of service benefits. The Court noted that Srikanth had gone missing while he was under the command of the CRPF authorities, and therefore it was unreasonable to expect the father to lodge an additional complaint. Since the authorities themselves had already reported the disappearance to the police, insisting upon another FIR from the family served no meaningful purpose. The Court therefore held that the claim for service and pensionary benefits could not be rejected on this technical ground. Considering that the constable had remained untraced for more than ten years, the Court directed the authorities to treat him as a missing employee and process the claims of his legal heirs in accordance with the relevant pension rules and standing orders. The Court also directed that the admissible service and pensionary benefits be disbursed to the legal heirs or nominees upon submission of an indemnity bond. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.