The court reinforced the principle that a petitioner must exhaust available statutory remedies before approaching the court, affirming the importance of procedural compliance in maintaining judicial efficiency.

Headnote:(A) Border Security Force Rules, 1979 - Rule 17 - Border Security Force Act, 1969 - Rule 28A - Dismissal of personnel - Petitioner challenged his dismissal on grounds of a forged Swimming Certificate; petition dismissed for lack of maintaining alternative remedies available under Rule 28A of the BSF Act - Court allowed liberty to file a petition under Rule 28A. (Paras 2, 4, 6)

(B) Legal remedy - The court emphasized the necessity to exhaust all available legal remedies before approaching higher courts, highlighting the principle that procedural compliance is essential for maintaining judicial efficiency. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge his dismissal from the Border Security Force not only due to the claim of presenting a fake Swimming Certificate but also wished for a re-verification of certificates for similarly situated personnel.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not availed himself of the alternative remedy as prescribed by Rule 28A of the BSF Act and thus disposed of the writ petition with liberty to properly pursue that remedy.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner had exhausted available procedural remedies before challenging his dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that when a statutory remedy is available, parties must utilize that remedy before seeking redress in higher courts, underscoring judicial principles of efficiency and procedural propriety.

Result: Petition disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek remedy under Rule 28A of the BSF Act.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: (Oral)

C.M.No.6564/2022

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.2281/2022

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the dismissal order dated 07th December 2021 passed by the Respondents. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondents to conduct a re-verification of the Petitioner's Swimming Certificates which had been done for two similarly situated personnel.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that vide the impugned dismissal order dated 07th December 2021, the Petitioner has been unlawfully dismissed from the Border Security Force under Rule 17 of the BSF Rules, 1979 after serving for 6 years and 5 months on the ground of presenting a fake/forged Swimming Certificate.

4. Mr.Hemendra Singh, Law Officer, BSF raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner has an alternative effective remedy by filing a petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Act, 1969.

5. Mr.Ajit Kumar Kakkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner candidly admits that the Petitioner has not filed a petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Act till date.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file a petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Act, 1969 within a week. In the event such a petition is filed within the stipulated period, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be decided on merit by way of a reasoned order within twelve weeks. It is clarified that this Court has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document