The main legal point established is that the dismissal of an employee must adhere to the principles of natural justice and be in accordance with the procedural requirements of the relevant laws and rules.

ORDER :

1. The present instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:-

i) to quash Order No. Estt-1/COI/59Bn/2001/12866-13066 dated 20.10.2001, issued by the Officiating Commandant 59Bn. BSF, by which the Official Commandant has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner and treated the period of absence w.e.f. 10.07.2001 to 20.10.2001 as ‘Dies Non’ and to quash departmental proceedings (if any done) and to quash the Charges (if any framed) against the petitioner and also to quash the Order dated 10.04.2002 by which the Director General of BSF has rejected the representation of the petitioner, by issuance of writ of Certiorari: and

ii) to issue direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for re-instatement and to allow the petitioner to join and perform his duty on the post of Head Constable on which the petitioner was working prior to his dismissal from service and to release the salary and to give all other consequential benefits to the petitioner for which the petitioner is entitled and also to treat the period from the date of dismissal to the date the petitioner re-joins the duty as ‘on duty’ by issuance of writ of mandamus; and

iii) to issue direction to the respondents restraining them to implement the Order No. Estt-1/COI/59Bn/2001/12866-13066 dated 20.10.2001 and restraining the respondents the respondents to fill up the post of petitioner by making appointment or adjustment and also restraining the respondents to treat the period w.e.f 10.07.2001 to the date the petitioner rejoins the duty as ‘break in service’ by issuance of writ of prohibition; and

iv) to issue direction to the respondents to produce all the record of departmental proceedings (if any done) before this Hon’ble Court, by issuance of writ of mandamus; and

v) to declare the Order No. Estt-1/COI/59Bn/2001/12866-13066 dated 20.10.2001 and departmental proceedings (if any done) and the Charges (if any framed) against the petitioner and also Order dated 10.4.2002, as unconstitutional, ultra-vires and contrary to the provisions of BSF Act and Rules by issuance of writ of mandamus.

2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs are prayed are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Constable on 01.07.1983 in the Border Security Force (for short “the BSF”) under No. 83002758, and after completing successfully his training course at STC Hazaribag, Bihar, the petitioner during the course of his working came to be promoted as L/Naik in 1990, Naik in 1993 and as a Head Constable in 1998-99.

3. It is being next stated that on 26.06.2001, the petitioner applied to the respondents for 60 days leave on account of the ill health of his wife, but, instead was granted 10 days leave whereafter during the course of availing said leave, the petitioner applied for extension of his leave supported by the medical history of his wife and also stated to have submitted a representation before the respondent as well seeking extension of leave in response whereof vide letter dated 06.09.2001, the respondents informed the petitioner that his leave has been rejected and that he should report back to his duty.

4. It is also being stated that in response to the letter dated 06.09.2001, the petitioner, yet again submitted a detailed application to the respondents informing them about the illness of his wife as also his own illness being the disease of Typhoid and, as such, applied for extension of leave.

5. It is being next stated that soon after the letter dated 06.09.2001, the petitioner received a show cause notice No. Estt-I/COI-VPT/59/01/11271 dated 19.09.2001 from the respondents proposing therein the termination of his service and that thereafter the Commandant – respondent 5 herein surprisingly issued Order No. Estt-1/COI/59Bn/2001/12866-13066 dated 20.10.2001 stating therein that the retention of the petitioner in service is undesirable.

6. Aggrieved of the order d