GAHC010004222025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WA/95/2025

BANJIT DAS

S/O LATE UMESH CH. DAS,

R/O VILL-HALAPAKURI, PO-HOWLY, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781316

VERSUS

1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TOTHE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME

AFFAIRS, BLOCK-V EAST, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL

BLOCK-V EAST R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110066

3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FTR HQR GUWAHATI

4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL SHQ

SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL BONGAIGAON ASSAM

5:THE COMMANDANT

15TH BN SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL

KAJALGAON DIST. CHIRAN

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India.

B E F O R E –

–

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

19.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. J.P. Chauhan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed in WP(C) No.5205/2017, a learned Single Judge of this Court has approved of the decision of removal of the appellant from the service of the Constable (General Duty) on account of his unsuitability for being continued in service.

3. The appellant served as a Constable (General Duty) in Sashastra Seema Bal (in short, SSB) at Bongaigaon. He had availed of the Earned Leave with effect from 05.10.2009 to 13.12.2009 but he never joined his service thereafter.

His contention is that he was under treatment for his mental illness during that time.

The aforesaid fact has been disproved by the authorities and the same has been accepted by the learned Single Judge.

4. When the appellant was not found to have resumed his service for a period of 60 days after completion of the period of his Earned Leave, a Court of Inquiry was convened, which reported that the appellant was a deserter from the Force.

5. This order of the Court of Inquiry was attempted to be communicated to the appellant at his residential address but there was no response of the appellant in connection with such decision to hold him as a deserter.

6. The respondents thereafter requested the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta to apprehend the appellant, but to no avail, for the reason that even his family members had no idea regarding his whereabouts for the last two years.

th Thereafter, the Commandant of 15 Battalion, SSB, Bongaigaon recorded the fact that the appellant had overstayed his leave and was declared a deserter, and by a communication dated 13.07.2010 asked the appellant to join his duties within 15(fifteen) days from the date of issuance of such letter, failing which, he would be removed from the service.

7. Since there was no response to the afore-noted th communication dated 13.07.2010 as well, the Commandant of 15 Battallion, SSB, Bongaigaon, vide his order dated 12.10.2010 removed the appellant from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 18(ii) of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009 (in short, ‘SSB Rules, 2009) read with Rule

26 thereof.

8. The provisions of Rule 18(ii) empower the Commandant to enforce the penalty of removal from service of an enrolled member of the Force on the ground of unsuitability.

9. The procedure for termination of service of enrolled member of the Force is provided under Rule 26 which provides that before passing such order of termination, the concerned member of the Force shall be informed about his unsuitability; would be furnished with the particulars of all matters adverse to him; and shall be called upon to urge any reasons he may wish to put forward in favour of his retention in service. The proviso in Rule 26 further clarifies as to what steps be taken if there is no response from the employee.

10. The major contention of the appellant here is that the provisions contained in Rule 26 of the SSB Rules, 2009 were not followed before the issuance of removal order