JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever about any audio and video quality.

I.A. No.3362 of 2021:

2. This interlocutory application has been filed for amendment of ground (B) taken in the memorandum of appeal as according to the appellants, ground (B) is not the complete sentence and the said error has been committed inadvertently.

3. Accordingly, since the amendment is very much formal in nature, we allow the appellants to amend ground (B), as has been stated in paragraph-7 of the present interlocutory application.

4. I.A. No.3362 of 2021 stands disposed of accordingly.

I.A. No.10305 of 2019:

5. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 61 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

7. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.10305 of 2019 is allowed and the delay of 61 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.751 of 2019:

9. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2125 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the order dated 29.12.2008, by which the husband of the writ petitioner was dismissed from service, has been quashed remitting it before the disciplinary authority to take fresh decision on the quantum of punishment within stipulated period.

10. The brief facts of the case which is required to be enumerated read as hereunder:

The husband of the writ petitioner joined the services of Border Security Force (BSF) in 74 Battalion BSF in Sanant Nagar, Srinagar (J&K) on 21.04.1985 in training Centre, Meru, Hazaribagh and thereafter he was sent to Jalandhar, Punjab where he remained for 16 years upto 2001. Thereafter he was posted at Hisar (Haryana) and thereafter from one place to another he was posted at Bareilly in the State of Uttar Pradesh working as such there, he went on 60 days of leave which sanctioned w.e.f. 04.02.2008 and he was supposed to join the duties on 04.04.2008 but due the physical ailment he could not join his duties since he got examined and treated diseases like Tuberculosis, Meningitis complicated with hydrocephalux and also suffered with mental disorientation.

However, he joined in the Battalion in the month of February, 2009 and a show cause was issued to him vide order dated 02.09.2008 asking explanation why action be not taken dismissing him from service as also proceeding should not be initiated against him under Rule 22 of The Border Security Force Rules, 1969.

The husband of the writ petitioner apprised the entire facts about his physical sufferings but without appreciating the aforesaid ground, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 29.12.2008 by striking his name from the strength of 74 Battalion BSF w.e.f. 29.12.2008. It is the ground of the writ petitioner that the order of dismissal dated 29.12.2008 had not been confirmed by the superior authority, as such, could not be given effect and on this ground, the order of dismissal was not sustainable. The employee, namely, Naiman Kullu has challenged the order of dismissal by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but in course of pendency of the writ petition, he died, therefore, he was substituted by his wife, namely, Jablain Kullu vide order dated 24.02.2014.

The ground has been taken in assailing the order of dismissal that the order of punishment is without following the procedure as also it is disproportionate to the alleged irregularity committed. The learned Single Judge on contest has passed an order for quashing the order of dismissal on the ground of quantum and remitted the matter before t