Chandigarh: In a significant ruling with wider implications for disciplinary matters involving armed forces personnel, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that a member of a uniformed force does not forfeit his humanity at the altar of discipline.The high court said institutional discipline and individual dignity are not antithetical, but complementary constitutional values.“There is also a constitutional undercurrent that cannot be ignored. The state, even in its capacity as employer in a disciplined force, is bound by fairness under Articles 14 and 21. A member of a uniformed force does not forfeit his humanity at the altar of discipline. Institutional discipline and individual dignity are not antithetical but are complementary constitutional values,” the court observed.Justice Sandeep Moudgil made the observations while setting aside the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable, holding that the punishment of dismissal from service for prolonged absence from duty was “harsh and shockingly disproportionate” and imposed without proper consideration of medical evidence.In the case, CRPF constable Vivek Kumar was dismissed from service in April 2019 after being declared a deserter during a prolonged period of absence.Vivek, who had joined the CRPF in 2006, had gone on sanctioned leave in May 2018 but failed to report back on time after suffering a road accident that caused a foot injury. He later underwent prolonged medical treatment, including hospitalisation for several months due to a non-healing ulcer, and subsequently suffered a spinal injury in another accident.Despite this, the CRPF declared him a “proclaimed person” in December 2018 and conducted an ex parte departmental inquiry, eventually dismissing him from service.Challenging the dismissal, Vivek moved the high court, arguing that his absence was neither wilful nor deliberate, but caused by circumstances beyond his control. He submitted that the medical record clearly established his inability to resume duty.After hearing the parties, Justice Moudgil held that the punishment awarded was harsh and shockingly disproportionate.The court also observed that the inquiry was effectively a “facade of fairness”, as there was no meaningful effort to ensure the petitioner’s participation.It further held that the decision to declare him a deserter was taken without properly examining whether his absence was deliberate or the result of genuine medical incapacity.Allowing the petition, the high court set aside the dismissal and directed the Centre to release all consequential benefits.
