The Telangana High Court has set aside the removal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who went missing during a training programme in 2015 and directed authorities to process service and pensionary benefits for his family.
The court observed that disciplinary action taken against a missing employee through an ex-parte inquiry could not be sustained when the employee had disappeared while under the control of the force.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Slams UP Officials Over Namaz Restriction in Sambhal During Ramzan
Background of the Case
The case was filed by M. Appa Rao, the father of CRPF constable M. Srikanth, who had gone missing while attending a computer training programme at the CRPF Group Centre in Jharodakalan, New Delhi, in June 2015.
Srikanth had earlier suffered amputation of his left leg and was declared medically unfit for combat duties. A departmental rehabilitation board recommended that he continue service and undergo skill training to enable alternative employment within the force.
Accordingly, he was sent for a computer training course. However, on June 1, 2015, he was reported absent from roll call at the CRPF Group Centre. Search efforts at nearby locations failed to trace him, and the authorities lodged a police complaint.
Subsequently, a court of inquiry declared him a deserter and an ex-parte departmental inquiry was conducted, resulting in his removal from service in January 2017.
The constable’s father approached the High Court seeking quashing of the removal order and claiming service benefits applicable to families of missing employees.
He relied on government guidelines which allow family pension and other dues to be granted if a government employee remains untraceable despite police efforts.
The petitioner argued that his son had gone missing while under the supervision of the CRPF and therefore the family should not be denied benefits merely because a separate missing complaint was not lodged by them.
The CRPF authorities contended that the petitioner had not filed a missing report in the local police station and had not submitted required documents such as an indemnity bond.
They also argued that without such formalities, the department could not process claims for pensionary benefits.
Police records submitted in court stated that despite inquiries and alerts to various agencies, the missing constable had not been traced for several years.
The division bench examined the circumstances under which the constable disappeared and noted that he went missing while staying inside the CRPF training centre.
The court emphasised that the constable was under the command and control of the CRPF at the time of the incident.
“The petitioner’s son was undergoing training at the Group Centre, CRPF, Jharodakalan, when he went missing. In such circumstances, the authorities cannot shift responsibility by treating him as a deserter,” the bench observed.
The judges also noted that records such as visitor registers and CCTV footage from the relevant period were no longer available, as they had been deleted or destroyed according to routine procedures.
Importantly, the court pointed out that even the warrant of arrest issued against the constable could not be executed because he was never found at his native village.
The bench stated that conducting an ex-parte inquiry against a person who has remained untraceable for years cannot justify the penalty imposed on him.
Setting aside the removal order, the High Court held that the disciplinary action against the missing constable could not be sustained in law.
The court further ruled that the insistence on the father filing a separate missing complaint was not mandatory in the circumstances of the case, particularly when the CRPF itself had reported the disappearance to the police.
“The order of removal from service cannot be sustained… the authorities are directed to process the claim for service benefits treating the employee as missing,” the bench held.
The court directed the CRPF authorities to disburse admissible service and pensionary benefits to the legal heirs or nominees of the constable in accordance with applicable rules, subject to submission of an indemnity bond.
Case Title: Shri M. Appa Rao vs Union of India & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15719 of 2021
Decision Date: 19 January 2026
