Dismissal from service upheld due to prolonged unauthorized absence and insufficient justification for the leave; reinstatement denied as the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory communication requirements.

Headnote:(A) Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 61 and 62 - Dismissal from service - Writ petition filed to quash dismissal order due to prolonged unauthorized absence - Petitioner's casual leave was for the illness of his mother, but he failed to report back or respond to multiple communications from the unit - Court found the inquiry was conducted correctly, and the petitioner was guilty of absence without sufficient cause. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Employment Law - Right to reinstatement - The court emphasized that reinstatement must be justified, especially where an individual has absented themselves without notice and failed to communicate with their employer appropriately. (Paras 1, 10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed for reinstatement after being dismissed for overstaying leave. His mother’s illness was cited as the reason, but he did not respond to official communications regarding his absence. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The inquiry into the petitioner’s absence was fair and resulted in valid dismissal; the petitioner had multiple opportunities to clarify his situation, which he did not take. (Paras 9-10)

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the dismissal for unauthorized absence was justified and whether the petitioner’s reasons were sufficient for reinstatement. (Paras 1, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner’s failure to communicate and comply with the rules justified his dismissal; reinstatement was denied due to a lack of merit in the petitioner’s claim. (Paras 9-10)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. dismissal for prolonged unauthorized absence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. court's dismissal due to lack of merit. (Para 9 , 10)
3. final order of dismissal of writ petition. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 4th March, 2021 passed by Deputy Inspector General, whereby the representation of the petitioner seeking to reinstate him in service was rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in 26th Battalion as a Constable).

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner sought casual leaves on account of illness of his ailing mother from 5th February, 2018 to 25th February, 2018 and his leaves were sanctioned with a direction to resume duty from 25th February, 2018.

3. He points out that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from hypertension and hemiparesis and on 15th February, 2018, she fell seriously ill.

4. He admits that the Petitioner's unit sent multiple letters to the Petitioner dated 20th March 2018, 27th March 2018 and 05th April 2018, directing the Petitioner to report back and resume duty.

5. He states that on 25th April, 2018, a one-man Court of Inquiry was ordered wherein it was found that the Petitioner had overstayed his leave without sufficient cause and, therefore, the Respondent decided to take action against the Petitioner in accordance with BSF Act and Rules. He states that the Petitioner in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 16th July 2018, intimated that he could not resume his duties due to compelling domestic problems.

6. He points out that the Court of Inquiry, without considering the Petitioner's mother's medical situation, dismissed the Petitioner from service vide order dated 28th September, 2018.

7. He states that the Petitioner preferred a representation dated 10th December, 2020 seeking reinstatement which was rejected vide the impugned non-speaking order dated 4th March 2021 passed by the Deputy Inspector General for DG, BSF, North Bengal Frontier, which led to the filing of the present writ petition.

8. He contends that the Petitioner was hopeful that the condition of his mother would improve and he would be able to return to the battalion within time. However, since the condition of the Petitioner's mother became worse and she was advised complete bed rest by the doctors, the Petitioner could not return to his unit.

9. A perusal of the paper book shows that the impugned order is neither non-speaking nor unreasoned. In fact, the Deputy Inspector General in the impugned order has given cogent reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:

"3. Seeing the absence of the Applicant, as per Rules, vide Registered Letters No. Estt/676/26 Bn/2018/4906-08 dated 20.04.2018, Estt./676/26 Bn/2018/5277-79 dated 27.03.2018 and letter Number Estt./676/26 Bn/2018/5969 dated 05.04.2018 by the 26th Battalion B.S.F., by corresponding at the address given in his leave Application, he was directed that he should report for duty in the Battalion at the earliest, but neither any reply was received from the Applicant nor he reported at Battalion Headquarter. As per the provisions of Sections 62 of the Border Security Act, 1968, for examining the reasons regarding remaining absent continuously by the Applicant without any authority/leave, 26th Battalion constituted a one Member Couft of Inquiry. After completion of the proceedings of the Court of Enquiry, the Court of Enquiry found the aforesaid employee guilty of remaining absent without any authority. Leave, thereafter, under Section 61 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, 26th Battalion Border Security Force's letter Number Estt./Disc/26 Bn/2018/8830 dated 18.06.2018. Apprehension Roll was issued for arrest of the aforesaid employee. Even after lapse of the specified per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document