High Court Quashes CRPF Constable's Dismissal for Two-Hour Sleep During Duty

A seasoned CRPF constable who lost his job for falling asleep during duty has been given a second chance by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court's decision brings relief to someone whose career seemed finished over what many would consider a human moment of weakness.

The constable had served for 15 years without major incidents. His record showed commendations for bravery and dedication to duty. But on one particular day, fatigue got the better of him, and he dozed off for two hours while on duty. The punishment that followed seemed to fit a much more serious crime - immediate dismissal from service.

When reviewing the case, Justice Sandeep Moudgil was blunt. While discipline is necessary for security forces to operate efficiently, the judge made clear that upholding standards is not the same as ruining someone's life over a single error. The court referred to the dismissal as "civil death" because it effectively prevented the man from making a living in his chosen field.

The background of that fateful day was what made this case so strong. Medical records presented to the court revealed the constable was dealing with his mother's serious illness. Anyone who has watched a loved one suffer knows how this kind of stress can drain both physical and mental energy.

The court found several important facts that worked in the constable's favor. He hadn't abandoned his post entirely or left the station unprotected. There was no evidence he had been drinking or was otherwise impaired. He was simply a tired man dealing with personal crisis who momentarily succumbed to exhaustion.

Concerns were also raised by the case's legal technicalities. Under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, which normally deals with minor infractions with mild penalties like reprimands, authorities had charged the constable. However, they handled his case as though he had committed several serious crimes, accusing him of both disobeying orders and missing duty for the same incident.

The court pointed out that there were serious problems with this strategy. Someone cannot be punished twice for essentially the same error. Further severe punishment seemed unjust because the constable had already accepted and served some disciplinary action during his career. 

Justice Moudgil's ruling sends an important message about how organizations should handle human failings. The decision doesn't excuse sleeping on duty or suggest it's acceptable behavior. Instead, it argues that punishment should consider the whole person, not just the mistake.

The court underlined that punishment must be appropriate for the crime committed as well as the individual's circumstances. A 15-year veteran with a clean service record who has personal issues should be treated differently than someone who has a history of misbehavior. 

This case brings to light a larger problem with how institutions strike a balance between humanity and discipline. Although rules are in place for good reasons, they can result in injustices that are not in anyone's best interests if they are applied arbitrarily. His department learns a valuable lesson in proportionate punishment, and the constable regains his career.