The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service, finding the punishment proportionate to the gravity of his repeated misconduct and not warranting judicial intervention.

Headnote:(A) Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 117 - Application for restoration of writ petition dismissed in default for non-prosecution - Dismissal based on charges of threatening language and disciplinary violations - Past conduct including multiple punishments noted. (Paras 1-4, 8-11)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Standard of proof in service discipline cases is based on the preponderance of probabilities; the court will not interfere when the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct. (Paras 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order confirming his dismissal from service on charges of using threatening language and for being a habitual offender, with a previous record of multiple punishments and warnings.

Findings of Court:
The Court confirmed the dismissal, finding that the punishment was appropriate given the seriousness of the petitioner’s past conduct.

Issues: The core issues included whether the dismissal was justified given the petitioner's prior record and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner's guilty plea and history of misconduct justified the dismissal, noting that personal circumstances do not mitigate habitual wrongdoing.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. restoration of petition due to counsel's illness (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenge to dismissal order and charges against petitioner (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's assessment of petitioner's guilt and past conduct (Para 11 , 12)
4. punishment deemed appropriate and justified by court (Para 14)
5. final dismissal of writ petition (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral):

The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing

C.M.No. 9746/2022

1. Present application has been filed seeking restoration of W.P.(C)1061/2022, which had been dismissed in default and on account of non-prosecution.

2. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner states that the counsel for the Petitioner was unwell and thus could not appear on the last date of hearing i.e. on 17th January, 2022. He states that non-appearance on the part of learned counsel for the Petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate.

3. Issue notice. Mr.Dilbag Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

4. Keeping in view of the averments in the application, the same is allowed and the matter is restored to its original status.

5. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.1061/2020

6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is taken up for hearing.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27th September 2017 passed by DG BSF, whereby the Petitioner's dismissal order dated 04th March 2017 has been confirmed and the Petitioner has been dismissed from service. Petitioner also seeks re-instatement with all consequential benefits.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that two charges were framed against the Petitioner as per the charge sheet dated 12th May 2016 i.e. using threatening language with his superior officer and violating the good order and discipline of the force. He states that SSFC conducted the proceedings against the Petitioner on 06th September 2016 and vide order dated 04th March 2017, the Petitioner was found guilty of both the charges and consequently dismissed from service.

9. He states that the Petitioner preferred a petition dated 17th May 2017 under Section 117 of the BSF Act, challenging his dismissal order dated 04th March 2017. He emphasises that Respondent, vide the impugned order dated 27th September 2017, has rejected the petitioner's petition and confirmed the findings dated 04th March 2017 passed by THQ 85 BN BSF Malkangiri, Odisha.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasises that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and since the Petitioner was the best cadet of his unit, many persons are inimical to him. He also states that at the time of incident, the Petitioner was slightly disturbed as his wife was unwell.

11. A perusal of the record reveals that the Petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges in the SSFC. Further, the Petitioner was a habitual offender who had been punished seven times in the past and given warning twice for using threatening and insubordinate language with his superiors.

12. Consequently, the defence of the petitioner that the Petitioner was disturbed on the date of incident due to his wife's ill health `cuts no ice' with this Court!

13. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that the Petitioner was in the habit of overstaying his leave.

14. Hence, considering the Petitioner's past conduct and the offences committed by him, this Court is of the view that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the offences and calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction.

15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document