1. Overstay of leave by a constable — Dismissal from service — Challenge to disciplinary proceedings and quantum of punishment. (Para 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ, SANGEETA SHARMA, J.
Pawan Prajapati S/o Shri Asha Lal Prajapati – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through its Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 873 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 77 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashish Kumar
For the Respondents: Sunil Samdaria, Arihant Samdaria
For the Appellant : Ashish Kumar
For the Respondents: Sunil Samdaria, Arihant Samdaria
In disciplinary proceedings for uniformed forces, courts may modify punishments that are shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct—such as reducing dismissal to compulsory retirement—when overstay of leave does not amount to desertion and the employee voluntarily rejoined duty.
Headnote:(A) Border Security Force Act, 1969 - Section 117; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 43, 45, 48, 63, 149; Constitution of India - Article 226(2) - Territorial Jurisdiction - Receipt of an impugned order by a party at their native place constitutes a fraction of the cause of action, which is sufficient to entertain a writ petition under Article 226(2). (Paras 18-19)
(B) Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope and ambit - High Court's interference is limited; it shall not reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings unless the inquiry is in violation of statutory provisions, contrary to principles of natural justice, or the findings are perverse. (Paras 26-27)
(C) Reasoned Orders - In the absence of a specific legislative mandate, confirming authorities in summary security force courts are not obligated to provide detailed reasoned orders for findings and sentences. (Paras 28-32)
(D) Proportionality of Punishment - Punishment must bear a reasonable nexus with the gravity of the misconduct - Dismissal for overstay of leave, where the employee voluntarily rejoined duty and the act does not amount to desertion, is shockingly disproportionate - Such penalty may be modified to compulsory retirement. (Paras 36-39)
Facts of the case:
An employee in a uniformed force was dismissed following a summary trial for overstaying sanctioned leave by 77 days. The employee had voluntarily rejoined duty, citing a family medical emergency. A Single Judge previously quashed the dismissal and ordered reinstatement without back-wages, remitting the matter for a reasoned order. Cross-appeals were filed by the employee seeking back-wages and opposing remand, and by the employer challenging the interference with the disciplinary proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that territorial jurisdiction was validly invoked. The disciplinary proceedings were procedurally sound and did not require a reasoned order from the confirming authority. However, since the misconduct (overstay of leave) did not amount to desertion and the employee had voluntarily returned to duty, the penalty of dismissal was excessive.
Issues: Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction; whether the disciplinary proceedings complied with the relevant statutory rules; whether the confirming authority was required to pass a reasoned order; and whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the findings of guilt were justified and procedurally correct, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offense. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the court held that compulsory retirement was a more suitable punishment for overstay of leave when not amounting to desertion.
Result: The punishment awarded vide order dated 08.03.2004, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.08.2004, stands modified to compulsory retirement. The appellant shall be entitled to notional continuity of service for pension eligibility without salary or allowances.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 226 (Para 19)
-
writ jurisdiction
Table of Contents
2. Appellant seeks back-wages and challenges remand; respondent contends Single Judge exceeded judicial review in interfering with disciplinary action. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 )
3. No grave procedural infirmity; findings of guilt justified; punishment of dismissal shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. (Para 21 , 25 , 33 , 35 , 39 )
4. Punishment must be proportionate to misconduct; dismissal for overstay without desertion is disproportionate; compulsory retirement appropriate. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 )
5. Dismissal modified to compulsory retirement; appellant entitled to notional continuity for pension eligibility but no back-wages. (Para 40 )
6. Does a non-speaking order by the appellate authority in court-martial proceedings require setting aside of the disciplinary action?
No, as per S.N. Mukherjee and Dinesh Kumar, reasons are not required to be recorded by the SSFC under Rule 149 or the appellate authority under Section 117(2). (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
7. What is the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and can the High Court interfere with the quantum of punishment?
Judicial review is limited to illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety; the court can interfere if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate as per Ranjit Thakur and Abrar Ali. (Para 26 , 27 , 37 , 38 )
8. Can the High Court entertain a writ petition when a part of cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction?
Yes, if a fraction of the cause of action occurs within the court's jurisdiction, such as service of the appellate order, it is sufficient under Article 226(2). (Para 18 , 19 )
9. Is a reasoned order by the disciplinary authority mandatory under the BSF Rules?
No, the BSF Rules, particularly Rule 149 and Section 117(2), do not mandate a detailed reasoned order; substantial compliance is sufficient. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
10. What is the appropriate punishment for overstay of leave in uniformed forces when it is not a case of desertion?
Compulsory retirement is more proportionate than dismissal, especially when the employee voluntarily rejoined and has mitigating circumstances like family illness. (Para 37 , 39 , 40 )
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA SHARMA, J.
1. The present D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 873/2023 and 77/2024 have been preferred against the judgment dated 19.07.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9900/2005, in which the following orders and directions were passed:-
“22. ...the impugned orders dated 08.03.2004 and 31.08.2004 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appropriate authority for passing reasoned and speaking order after following the provisions contained under Chapter VII of the Rules of 1969 after granting opportunity of hearing to both sides within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
23. As a result, this petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service but he will not be entitled to get any back-wages from the date of his removal from service till his reinstatement.”
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant–writ petitioner has preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 873/2023, seeking grant of back-wages and further assailing that part of the impugned judgment whereby the matter has been remitted to the competent disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order.
3. On the other hand, the respondent–Union of India has filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 77/2024, calling in question the interference with the disciplinary proceedings and the consequential direction for reinstatement of the appellant.
4. Since both the appeals emanate from the same judgment and involve common factual matrix as well as interconnected questions of law, they are being heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 873/2023 is treated as the leading appeal, and the parties are referred to in accordance with their respective status therein.
5. The factual conspectus giving rise to the present appeals is that the appellant was appointed as Constable (General Duty) vide order dated 12.01.1995. On 27.10.2003, the appellant was sanctioned eight days’ casual leave for the period from 27.10.2003 to 04.11.2003, and was required to report back for duty on 05.11.2003.
6. The appellant had reserved a train ticket for 04.11.2003, but he did not resume duty on the stipulated date citing the sudden cardiac illness of his mother. He subsequently rejoined duty voluntarily on 20.01.2004.
7. Consequent thereto, the respondent-department initiated departmental proceedings against the appellant on the charge of overstay of leave, which culminated in an order of dismissal dated 08.03.2004, passed by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as “SSFC”). The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.08.2004.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition, inter alia, alleging procedural irregularities, violation of the principles of natural justice, and dis-proportionality of punishment, which ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2023.
9. In the present Special Appeals, it is evident that both sides, namely the appellant as well as the respondent–Union of India, are aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge but for different reasons. The appeals, therefore, require a careful examination of the parties’ respective grievances to assess the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment.
10. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended, in substance, that although the learned Single Judge had rightfully set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the appellant in service, however, the denial of back-wages for the period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement is wholly arbitrary and bereft of any cogent reasons.
11. It has further been contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge remanding the matter to the disciplina
