IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Subash Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Pritam Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
SWP No. 2587 of 2002
Decided on : 01-02-2024
Writ Jurisdiction - Dismissal from Service - BSF Act, 1968, Rules of 1969 - Section 62, Rule 170, Rule 173, Rule 176, Rule 20, Rule 21, Rule 48, Rule 49, Rule 133, Rule 134, Rule 139, Rule 142, Rule 157 - The court examined the record of proceedings undertaken by the respondents against the petitioner and found that the respondents followed the mandate of the Rules in letter and spirit. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents did not follow the mandate of Rules is found to be factually incorrect, so is also found the contention of the petitioner factually incorrect that the SSF Court proceedings were not conducted in accordance with Rules contained in Chapter XI of the Rules of 1969. The petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), was dismissed from service for overstaying leave and absence without leave. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition, challenging the dismissal and seeking reinstatement and backdated salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents followed the mandate of the BSF Act, 1968 and the Rules of 1969 in conducting the proceedings against the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the contentions raised by the petitioner were factually incorrect.
Issues: The issues revolved around the dismissal of the petitioner from service, the conduct of the proceedings by the respondents, and the adherence to the BSF Act, 1968 and the Rules of 1969.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the respondents followed the mandate of the BSF Act, 1968 and the Rules of 1969 in conducting the proceedings against the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the contentions raised by the petitioner were factually incorrect.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
ORDER :
1. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while imploring for the following reliefs:-
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 the duties on the post of Constable on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of Order dated 20.2.2002 and to pay salary and 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-join 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/163/SSFC/SSY/2002/1874-89 dated 20.2.2002 and restraining 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. 20.2.2002 till the date the petitioner re-join the duty as “break in service” by issuance of writ of prohibition; and
iv) To issue direction to the respondents to declare the Order No. Estt/163/SSFC/SSY/2002/1874-89 dated 20.2.2002; and Order No. Estt/DISC/SHQ/RJR/02/4910-14 dated 19.9.2002; and Summary Security Force Court proceedings (if any done) and also the Charges framed against the petitioner as unconstitutional, ultra-vires and contrary to the provisions of BSF Act and Rules by issuance of writ of mandamus;
v) To issue direction to the respondents to produce all the record of Summary Security Force Court proceedings (if any done) before this Hon’ble Court by issuance of writ of mandamus.
2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner as stated in the petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force (for short “the BSF”) on 18.04.1992 under no. 92010106 having been recruited from West Bengal and upon undergoing training at Kharkha Camp (Punjab) came to be posted in 163 Bn BSF.
3. It is being stated that the petitioner came to be granted 15 days leave w.e.f. 28.08.2002 to 12.09.2002 and during the period of availing of the said leave, the petitioner was taken ill which illness was reported to the respondents through various letters and a representation along with Medical Certificate, which came to be received by the respondents on 14.10.2000, and that in the meantime, there was marriage of the petitioner’s nephew and the petitioner again applied for leave to the respondents, which, however, was not granted.
4. It is being next stated that the respondents framed a charge against the petitioner on 18.02.2002 under Sections 19(a) and 19(b) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short “the Act of 1968”) alleging therein that the petitioner having been granted 16 days leave w.e.f. 28.08.2000 up to 12.09.2000 failed to rejoin his duties and thereafter re-joined on 18.12.2000 after over staying the leave of 97 days and that the respondents framed another charge against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner having been discharged from General Hospital, Rajouri on 11.04.2000 with a direction to report to the Battalion Headquarter, Rajouri absented without leave till 29.05.2001 i.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings conducted in accordance with the BSF Act and Rules, and the plea of guilty entered by the petitioner during the Summary Securi....
Dismissal proceedings must adhere to the prescribed procedures, and the recording of a plea of guilty must comply with Rule 142(2) of the BSF Rules of 1969.
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 r....
The Summary Security Force Court lacked jurisdiction to try civil offences under Section 46 of the BSF Act, except for simple hurt or theft, as per Rule 47 of BSF Rules.
Dismissal without adherence to natural justice principles and statutory procedures is invalid, necessitating reinstatement of the employee.
The plea of guilt must be recorded in accordance with the procedural rules, and the absence of the accused's signature on the minutes of the proceedings can impact the credibility of the plea.
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....
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 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.