Compliance with statutory rules governing termination of service is mandatory and failure to adhere to such rules renders the action invalid.

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.

1. In the present petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 3rd of September, 2002 whereby he has been removed from service. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Sepoy in Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force in the year 1990. Somewhere in the month of July-August, 2000, the petitioner is reported to have developed some mental problem and was admitted in the ITBP Hospital, Chandigarh for three months and subsequently was sent for leave for 60 days w.e.f., 22.2.2001 to 23.3.2001 by the Assistant Commandant 12th Battalion 'B' Company, ITBP, Bathinda (Punjab).

2. It is stated that the petitioner remained under treatment even at home and, therefore, could not re-join his duties after the expiry of the leave period on account of his illness.

3. It is stated that the petitioner filed an applications for grant of medical leave/extension of medical leave, which prayer was rejected and instead he was declared as an 'absconder'.

4. Finally, it is stated that without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, he was removed from service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order impugned was contrary to Rule 20 of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Rules, 1994 (for short 'ITBP Rules of 1994'), which prescribes as under:-

"20. Termination of service of persons, other than officers on account of misconduct.-

(1) When it is proposed to terminate the service of a person subject to the Act other than an officer, he shall be given an opportunity by the authority competent to dismiss or remove him to show cause in the manner specified in sub-rule (2) against such action: Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply-

(a) Where the service is terminated on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction by a criminal Court or a Force Court; or

(b) Where the authority as specified in Rule 17 is satisfied that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to give the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause.

(2) When after considering the reports on the misconduct of the person concerned, the authority as specified in Rule 17 is satisfied that the trial of such a person by the Force Court is inexpedient or impracticable, but is of the opinion, that his further retention in the service is undesirable, it shall so inform him together with all reports adverse to him and he shall be called upon to submit, in writing, his explanation and defence:

Provided that the authority as specified in Rule 17 may withhold from disclosure any such report or portion thereof, if in his opinion, its disclosure is not in the interest of security of the State.

(3) the authority as specified in Rule 17 after considering his explanation and defence, if any, or the judgment of the Criminal Court, as the case may be, may dismiss or remove him from the service.

(4) All cases of dismissal or removal, under this rule, shall be reported to the Director General."

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner had failed to re-join his services after the leave period. Overstaying leave without sufficient cause constitutes an offence in terms of Section 21 of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992 (For Short, 'ITBP Act of 1992') and is punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years.

8. Rule 20 of the 'ITBP Rules of 1994' framed under the 'ITBP Act of 1992', as reproduced in the preceding paragraph, envisages that when it is proposed to terminate the service of an employee subject to the Act, he shall be given an opportunity by the authority competent to dismiss or remove him to show cause in the manner specified in sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (2) in turn requires the authority concerned to record a satisfaction regarding inexpediency or impracticability of holding a trial of a person by the Force Court before recording an opinion that his further