JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P- 8) passed by the respondent no 2, being wrong, illegal, arbitrary, perverse, contrary to law and facts and against the settled law, in the interest of justice.

Brief facts

2. The petitioner was serving as a Head Constable in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, posted with 17th Battalion at Rekong Peo, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was granted earned leave for a period of 45 days from 19.10.2024 to 02.12.2024. During this period, the petitioner suffered severe personal hardships as both his parents expired and he also went through a divorce, leaving him emotionally distressed and depressed. Due to the absence of any family member at his native village, the petitioner temporarily stayed at his brother’s residence in Panipat for emotional support and medical treatment. Consequently, official communications sent by the department to his village address could not be received by him.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know through a newspaper publication that he had been declared a deserter and removed from service vide order dated 29.03.2025. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated 29.04.2025 to the competent authorities including the Commandant, higher officers of ITBP and the concerned administrative authorities, expressing his willingness to resume duty and requesting an opportunity to serve the nation. The petitioner was also undergoing medical treatment during the relevant period, as supported by medical records. However, without granting any opportunity of hearing or considering his representations and medical condition, the respondents passed the impugned removal order, compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Contentions

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of removal dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-8) is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner was never afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated. The removal order is a non-speaking order, passed without due application of mind and without considering the petitioner’s compelling personal circumstances, medical condition and timely representations.

5. It is further argued that the respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner never intended to desert service and his absence was neither wilful nor deliberate but was due to unavoidable and extraordinary personal hardship. The action of declaring the petitioner a deserter and removing him from service without conducting a proper inquiry or giving him an opportunity to explain has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises, suffers from material irregularities, and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be quashed and appropriate relief be granted in the interest of justice.

Analysis

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and record produced, this Court proceeds to determine whether the impugned order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-8) warrants interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Scope of Judicial Review

7. It is trite that in disciplinary matters, particularly concerning members of armed and paramilitary forces, the scope of judicial review is limited. The Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, held that the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226, shall not re-appre