HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Satpal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2348 Of 2007 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9246 Of 2015
Decided On : 29-04-2025
(A) Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 11, 12, 17, and 22 - Dismissal from service - Petitioner, an ex-constable, challenged dismissal for unauthorized absence of 238 days - Court found dismissal excessive given 25 years of service and mitigating circumstances - Show cause notice for dismissal treated as notice for termination of service. (Paras 1, 10, 18, 19)
(B) Service Jurisprudence - Distinction between termination and dismissal - Dismissal is punitive and bars future employment, while termination may not carry such stigma - Court emphasized the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions. (Paras 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner served 25 years in the Border Security Force, was dismissed for alleged misconduct due to unauthorized absence, and claimed harassment and medical issues affected his attendance. (Paras 1, 4.1, 4.9)
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was excessive; the show cause notice was to be treated as one for termination, reflecting the need for proportionality in disciplinary measures. (Paras 18, 19)
Issues: Whether the dismissal was justified given the petitioner’s long service and circumstances surrounding his absence. (Paras 17, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the show cause notice should be read as one for termination, emphasizing that disciplinary actions must be proportionate to the misconduct. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Dismissal treated as termination from service; writ petition partly allowed. (Paras 19, 20)
Order :
(ARUN MONGA, J.)
1. Having rendered 25 years of service in the Border Security Force, which safeguards the nation's frontiers, the petitioner, an ex-constable, is before this Court seeking enforcement of his legal rights. He, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash his dismissal order dated 27.11.2014, which was passed on the ground of his alleged misconduct i.e. remaining absent from duty for 238 days without sanctioned leave.
2. Petitioner has preferred both the above titled writ petitions. In SBCWP No.2348/2007, he impugns the show cause notice dated 20.12.2006, which proposed his reversion to the post of Class-IV Employee. Subsequently, by an order dated 27.11.2014, he was dismissed from service which is the subject matter of SBCWP No.3246/2015. The petitioner seeks quashing of both the impugned orders, along with all consequential reliefs, including reinstatement to the post of Constable with full pecuniary benefits and continuity of service.
Case set up by petitioner.
3. It is deemed appropriate that the prayer clauses of both the petitions be seen first. For ready reference, the same are reproduced as under:-
"SBCWP No.2348/2007
It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:-
(A) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be restrained from reverting the petitioner from present rank of constable (General duty) to previous rank Class IV (Enrolled follower/Cook).
(B) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the notices issued for reversion and any other consequential orders for reverting the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(C) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to condone the training for the petitioner to continue on the post of Constable as he has been deputed since 1992.
SBCWP No.9246/2015
It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ order or direction:
(1) The impugned order dated 27-11-2014 (Annx.39) and the appellate order dated 15-01-2015 (Annexure-43), 22-01-2015 (Annexure-44), 07.02.2015 (Annexure-45) and 11-02-2015 (Annexure-46) may kindly be quashed and set aside and petitioner may be allowed to continue at his present place of posting and the impugned orders may be given effect as if it was never passed against the petitioner.
(2) That the respondent may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to join as constable in the 102 Battalion BSF BaikhuntpurSalugara District Jalpaiguri West Bengal with all consequential benefits.
(3) That the respondent may kindly be directed to considered the medical leave of the petitioner and continue the petitioner on the post of constable w.e.f. 01-08-2014.
(4) That respondent may kindly be directed to initiate the disciplinary proceedings along with the civil and criminal proceeding against the private respondent.
(5) That the respondent may kindly be directed to the release the salary of the petitioner from the month of April 2014 onwards with all consequential benefit.
(6) That the respondent may kindly be directed to obtain the petitioner's things (Two Suitcase, two box, two attachi, one laptop, one mobile, uniform and civil dress etc) from the private respondent and delivered to the petitioner or in alternative directed to the private respondent to give the Rs.1 lack to the petitioner.
(7) That in the alternate prayer the respondent may kindly be directed to retire the petitioner as per their application w.e.f. 30-04-2014 with all consequential benefits."
4. For sake of brevity, facts are being taken from the later of the petitions, filed in the year 2015, since the events prior thereto are covered in the former one filed in the year 2007.
4.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook on 15.06.1989. He was re-mustered as a Constable in August 1992. After completing three months of basic training in 1990, he was confirmed a
Dismissal from service must be proportionate to misconduct; long service and mitigating circumstances warrant reconsideration of disciplinary actions.
Dismissal without adherence to natural justice principles and statutory procedures is invalid, necessitating reinstatement of the employee.
Dismissal of a Border Security Force Constable was declared void due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the BSF Act, violating constitutional rights to fair hearing and natural justic....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal order must adhere to the provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, and failur....
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 f....
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in a force and upheld the penalty of dismissal from service based on the serious nature of the charges.
The court established that disciplinary authorities have the jurisdiction to dismiss personnel for unauthorized absence, provided due process is followed as per the governing statutes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.