IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi RVW 18 of 2025 With IA No.: CAN 2 of 2025 Union of India & Ors.

Vs.

Md. Asif Baba @ Md. Asif in MAT 1623 of 2024 Md. Asif Baba @ Md. Asif Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the Review Applicants : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar, Ld. DSG & Sr. Advocate Ms. Anamika Pandey, Advocate Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/Appellant/: Mr. Pratik Majumder, Advocate Writ petitioner Mr. Snehasish Dey, Advocate Heard & Judgment on : April 23, 2025 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.:-

1. The review application is at the instance of the Union of India seeking a review of the judgment and order dated September 4, 2024 passed in MAT 1623 of 2024.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, we set aside the order of dismissal of the writ petitioner. We, however, did not find any reasons for the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner. We also granted liberty to the authorities to proceed with the charge as against the appellant from the stage just right to the order of dismissal issued by the Summary Security Force Court or from any other stage prior thereto as the disciplinary authority may deem fit and proper.

3. The writ petitioner was a constable posted in 193 Battalion of Border Security Force deployed at Kalyani in the year 2007. On February 6, 2007, the Commandant of the Battalion received an information from the company Commander with regard to recovery of unaccounted money from the possession of the writ petitioner. After receiving such an information, an offence report was prepared under Rule 43 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 for commission of an offence under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge sheet was issued against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner accordingly tried for the aforesaid offences before a Summary Security Force Court and was found guilty of the offences charged against. He was dismissed from service. The petitioner carried an appeal to the Appellate Authority designated under the Border Security Force Act against such order of holding guilty and dismissal from service. However, the appellate authority concurred with the findings of the Summary Security Force Court.

4. Initially, the writ petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Court by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. The learned Single Judged allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of conviction and dismissal from service. An appeal was preferred against such order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge.

5. Later on, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge having found no ground for interference with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The order passed in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge was challenged in an appeal in MAT 1623 of 2024 which resulted in the impugned order.

6. The review application has been preferred by the Union of India on the ground that the impugned order suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record.

7. According to the petitioner, at the time of passing the impugned order, the provisions contained in Rule 149 was not placed before this Court. It was also contended that, the impugned order ascribed a reason that the order holding the writ petitioner guilty of the offence and subsequently dismissing him from service was not supported by reasons. It was further contended that, Rule 9 of the Border Security