The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of discipline in the Border Security Force, the adherence to the BSF Act and Rules in dismissal proceedings, and the limited scope for interference by the court in disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents.

2. The prayers made in the writ petition reads thus:

“A) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent B SF authority, for taking appropriate steps upon immediately ensuring the reinstatement of the petitioner in his earlier post of constable (GD) in Border Security Force upon setting aside and/or quashing purported and impugned dismissal order vide No. Estt/1273/?/54/2011/8642- 762 dated 03.11.2011 as well as the order vide letter No-Estt-III/Rectt-II/Re-Ins/13/795- 98, dated 15.01.2013 passed by the; Assistant Commandant (MIN) For Inspector General, FTR, HQ,BSF, Jodhpur, Rajasthan forth with compensate the petitioner with exemplary monetary amount with regard to his salary and other service related benefit.

B) A Writ of and/or writs in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding/directing the respondent BSF authorities to set aside/quash the impugned order being order dated 19.08.2020and also letter No-Estt-III/Rectt-II/Re-Ins/13/795-98, dated 15.01.2013 passed by the; Assistant Commandant (MIN) For Inspector General, FTR, HQ,BSF, Jodhpur, Rajasthan towards setting aside the said impugned order of dismissal and to re-instate in service of your petitioner towards condoning the petitioner's overstaying without leave during his service;

C) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents BSF authority to produce, submit and/or authenticate all the relevant records papers and/or documents relating to the petitioner's service as well as impugned dismissal proceedings before the Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justices may be rendered upon hearing all the parties;

D) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (A), (B) and (C), made herein above;

E) Interim order in terms of prayer (A) and (B)made herein above.”

3. Brief facts are as follows:

The petitioner has been selected and appointed to the post of Constable/GD on 19.11.2008 in the Border Security Force (BSF) and had been performing duty with utmost sincerity since the first posting. In the month of March, 2011, the petitioner took leave from his duty and was suffering a viral disease like hepatitis and anemia for which the petitioner’s physical plight gradually deteriorate to an unable stage. On 18.6.2011, the petitioner received a show cause notice from the office of the Commandant as to why he should not be dismissed from the service for his illegal absent from his duties. When the petitioner approached the Commandant on 6.8.2011, Jodhpur along with his wife and explained the cause for his unauthorized absence from service, the same ended vain. The BSF authority declined to adhere the petitioner’s verbal prayer and ultimately respondent No.5 issued the dismissal order dated 3.9.2011.

3.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 24.11.2011. When the said appeal was kept in prolong abeyance, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.9386 (W) of 2013 challenging the order dated 3.9.2011 and to re-instate him in service. According to the petitioner, after filing the said writ petition, he had lost the contact details of his advocate and after a lapse of few months of 2016, the petitioner finally came to the order of the Court that the advocate has not taken steps and the writ petition was dismissed for default on 10.6.2013. After getting the change of vakalat from the earlier advocate, the petitioner engaged a new advocate and had filed application for restoration of the said order of dismissal dated 10.6.2013 in CAN 11311 of 2016 with delay condonation application in CAN 11312 of 2016. However, both the applications have been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.7.2017.

3.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2017, the petitioner filed an appeal in MAT No.21 of 2018 along with application for condonation of delay in CAN No.512 of 2018. By the order dated 14.11.2018, the appeal s