IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

W.P.A. 16847 of 2017

Minarul Sk.

-Vs-

The Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Banerjee For the Respondents/UOI : Ms. Chandreyi Alam

Heard on : 19.08.2024, 07.10.2024, 07.01.2025,

07.08.2025, 12.08.2025

Judgment on : 02.09.2025

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court seeking

a mandamus to set aside the order of termination from the post of Constable (GD), 113 Bn. BSF, on the ground of unfitness for service, alleging such action was taken without due procedure, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and in contravention of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

2. The petitioner was duly appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in BSF on

30.10.2013 and posted at Jodhpur. During service, he suffered a medical condition for which he was treated at MG Hospital, Jodhpur, where the

attending neurologist opined that there was no recurrence of epileptic episodes and recommended continuation in service under medication.

3. Despite the said medical opinion, a Medical Board constituted at STC BSF, Jodhpur on 09.06.2015 placed the petitioner in low medical category S1, H1, A1, P5, E1 and declared him unfit for further service. Subsequent Medical Boards reiterated this finding, leading to issuance of show-cause notices proposing his discharge.

4. The petitioner duly replied to the notices contending that he was asymptomatic, medically fit, and capable of completing training, and requested reconsideration of the Medical Board’s opinion. However, by order dated 26.05.2016, the authorities reiterated the finding of permanent unfitness and proceeded to terminate his service.

5. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner initially approached this Hon’ble Court. By order dated 08.02.2016, liberty was granted to him to pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the Director General, BSF.

6. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was heard by the Deputy Inspector General, STC BSF, Jodhpur, but the same was rejected by order dated 21.09.2016 in a mechanical manner, without adequate reasoning and in complete disregard of the medical opinion of the treating neurologist.

7. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the appellate authority, i.e., the Director General, BSF (Respondent No.3), failed to exercise the statutory jurisdiction vested in him and thereby abdicated his duty to consider the appeal on merits.

8. The petitioner contends that since both Medical Board reports admitted that the alleged disability arose during service, the petitioner could not have been discharged from service in view of the statutory protection under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, which prohibits termination on the ground of disability acquired during service.

9. The impugned termination is further assailed as violative of the principles of natural justice, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, being arbitrary, non-

speaking, and passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

10. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned orders of termination and appellate rejection be quashed and appropriate directions be issued for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

11. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:- i. The termination of the petitioner’s service was ex facie illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and in colourable exercise of power, having been made without due application of mind.

ii. The Medical Boards arrived at divergent and whimsical conclusions, contrary to the consistent opinion of the treating neurologist (Dr. Amita Bhargav), who had certified that the petitioner was seizure-free for 1–3 years, suffered only from a mild condition, and was capable of performing normal duties with minimal chance of aggravati