The judgment establishes the importance of following prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice in disciplinary actions within the Border Security Force.

JUDGMENT :

V.P. Vaish, J.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 18th January, 2002 and order dated 5th September, 2002 passed by respondent No. 4 and also for reinstating him in service with all consequential benefits.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force (BSF) on 15th January, 1990. On completion of his training, the petitioner was posted to the 111 Battalion, BSF at Nagaland and was later transferred to 55 Battalion, BSF.

3. It is stated that while the petitioner was rendering services in the 55 Battalion, BSF, in September, 2000, his father fell seriously ill. The petitioner alleged that he was neither informed of the illness of his father by the authorities, nor was he allowed to go on leave.

4. It is also stated by the petitioner that the then Commandant of the 55 Battalion had called the petitioner and asked him to avail leave to go home and see his ailing father. However, the father of the petitioner expired on 4th November, 2000 and he reached home only on 8th September, 2000. The petitioner has also stated that he suffered from mental shock due to the entire incident. He returned back to his duties at BSF, Shillong on the expiry of his leave. The petitioner has also alleged harassment from the superiors of the unit.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner was thereafter granted 60 days earned leave w.e.f. 18th June, 2001 to 21st August, 2001 and he went to his home in Kerala. It is stated that after availing leave, the petitioner reached Shillong to join duty, when he was not allowed to enter the premises by the then Commandant, Shri P. Raju.

6. It is further stated by the petitioner that in the month of March, 2002, the petitioner was informed by his brother that an order dated 18th January, 2002 was issued by the Commandant of the 55 Battalion, BSF, whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of availing unauthorised leave.

7. The petitioner preferred and appeal against the aforesaid order before the competent authority, which was dismissed. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being No. WP(C) 48 (SH) of 2011. This Court vide order 5th July, 2012, directed the respondents to constitute a Court of Inquiry within two months and to consider the grievances of the petitioner. However, the order of termination was not set aside, and only the Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Court.

8. The respondents filed a review petition in the aforesaid writ petition which was registered as Review Petition No. 6 (SH) of 2012 and this Court modified the order to the extent that the provision for allowing the petitioner to be represented by a lawyer would no longer be applicable and that the respondents were directed to conduct the inquiry in accordance with law.

9. In compliance to the orders passed by this Court, the respondents constituted the Court of Inquiry. The petitioner participated in the inquiry and the witnesses were examined. The petitioner alleged that the respondents did not inform him of the outcome of the enquiry report.

10. The respondents filed an application bearing No. MC(SH) 226/2013 in WP(C) No. 48 (SH)/2011 for placing on record the compliance report of order dated 13th February, 2013 passed by this Court which was disposed of on 12th July, 2013. The petitioner alleged that though the enquiry report was signed and submitted on 24th April, 2013, the same was sent to the petitioner only on 15th June, 2013. It is stated that the Court of Inquiry found that the petitioner had overstayed his leave without sufficient cause and that the reason given by the petitioner for over staying the leave was not plausible.

11. The petitioner, thus, filed the instant writ petition.

12. The peti