IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to procedural safeguards in disciplinary actions is essential, but claims of mental incapacity must be substantiated to affect the outcome of such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned DSGI, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 12.10.2010, removing the petitioner from his service with the Sashastra Seema Bal w.e.f. 12.10.2010. The petitioner has also challenged an order, dated 11.05.2010, by which the petitioner was declared to be a 'deserter'. Further, an order, dated 26.10.2016, rejecting the appeal so preferred by the petitioner, herein, against the order, dated 12.10.2010, is also assailed in this writ petition.

3. As projected in the writ petition; the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable(GD) in the Sashastra Seema Bal and he joined his service on 25.04.2000 and was so posted at 15th Bn., Sashastra Seema Bal, at Bongaigaon. The petitioner had availed Earned Leave w.e.f. 05.10.2009 to 03.12.2009. However, on conclusion of his said period of leave, the petitioner did not rejoin his service. The petitioner contends that he was under treatment w.e.f. 30.11.2009 on account of mental illness as suffered by him at the relevant point of time.

4. The petitioner, not having rejoined his service after completion of the leave as availed by him w.e.f. 05.10.2009 to 03.12.2009; the Deputy Commandant, 15th Bn., Sashastra Seema Bal, Bongaigaon, had issued a communication, dated 25.05.2010, requiring the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, to apprehend the petitioner, herein. In the said communication, dated 25.05.2010, it was contended that the petitioner, was, as per the direction of the Court of Inquiry, vide order, dated 27.04.2010, declared a 'deserter' from the Force w.e.f. 11.05.2010, under Section 74 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, and the Rules so framed thereunder.

5. It is seen from the materials brought on record that the petitioner, herein, was not apprehended by the police and the report as submitted by the jurisdictional Police Station reveals that the family members and the local people of the area, where the house of the petitioner is so situated; had contended that the petitioner had not come to his house for the last 2 years. The said report is dated 17.07.2010. The respondent authorities, thereafter, vide memorandum, dated 13.07.2010, noticing the fact that the petitioner was already declared a 'deserter' for his willful/unauthorized absence w.e.f. 11.05.2010, had required the petitioner to submit his stand in the matter before orders towards removing him from his service, was so issued in terms of the provisions of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, and Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009. There being no response from the petitioner, in the matter; the Commandant, 15th Bn., Sashastra Seema Bal, Bongaigaon, vide order, dated 12.10.2010, proceeded to remove the petitioner, herein, from his service by invoking the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, read with Rule 18(ii) of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009. The period of absence of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.12.2009 till 12.10.2010, i.e. 313 days, was treated as "dies non" for all intent and purpose.

6. The petitioner after a lapse of a period of around 5(five) years, proceeded to prefer an appeal on 05.12.2015, against the order, dated 12.10.2010, before the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ, Sashastra Seema Bal, Kokrajhar. It is to be noted that the said appeal so preferred by the petitioner, on consideration, came to be rejected by the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ, Sashastra Seema Bal, Kokrajhar, vide order, dated 19.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted an appeal on 25.07.2016, before the Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal. The said appeal of the petitioner was considered by the appellate authority and vide order, dated 25.10.2016, the appellate authority, on considering the contentions so raised by the petitioner in the said appeal; proceeded to reject the same.

7. Bein