Commandant vs Basavaraj A.K - Disciplinary Proceedings - CRPF
Disciplinary Proceedings - CRPF - In this case, High Court held that once the period of absence has been regularized, initiating proceedings for the very same cause would not arise - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court held: The issue relating to the absence from duty and adjustment of a leave to a delinquent officer against any existing leave even if any, would not tantamount to condonation of his absence.
Case Info
Case name: Commandant & Ors. v. Basavaraj A.K.
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind KumarHon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Judgment date: 23 January 2026
Case Laws and Citations Referred
- Om Prakash v. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 14 SCC 682 – cited for the principle that regularising a period of unauthorised absence (for record purposes) does not amount to condonation of that absence or to imposition of punishment, and therefore does not bar disciplinary action.
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, in particular Rule 29 (revisional remedy mentioned in the procedural history).
- The judgment also proceeds on general principles of service law and disciplinary jurisprudence(unauthorised absence, “no work no pay”, double jeopardy in service context), though no specific constitutional or statutory provision beyond the CRPF Rules is expressly quoted.