IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 27.11.2025 Pronounced on: 05.12.2025 Uploaded on: 05.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full SWP No.1957/2010 TARIQ AHMAD LONE ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. Z. A. Qureshi, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. I. A. Parray, Advocate &

Mr. Babar Bilal Malik, Advocate.

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.

...RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 15.03.2004, issued by respondent No.3, whereby he has been dismissed from service with effect from 10.03.2004. The petitioner has also sought a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him and to pay him all the pay/salary.

2) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable in Border Security Force (BSF) on 05.05.1995. In August, 2003, while he was discharging his duties in SHQ BSF CI Ops-II, Karan Nagar, Srinagar, he was taken ill and proceeded on earned leave with effect from 01.08.2003 to 18.08.2003. It has been submitted that the condition of the petitioner worsened and he had to be hospitalized due to which he could not resume his duties. It has been submitted that due to death of one of the relatives of the petitioner in militancy related activities, he was prevented from resuming his duties. Ultimately, in the month of November, 2009, the petitioner approached the respondents for resuming his duties but he was not allowed to do so on the ground that his services had been terminated. The petitioner thereafter was provided with copy of the dismissal order against which he preferred a representation in the month of January, 2010. However, he was not reinstated.

3) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of dismissal from service on the grounds that the same has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of BSF Act and the rules framed thereunder. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not been allowed to defend his case before the Enquiry Officer nor any notice has been issued to him prior to his dismissal. It has been contended that the respondents have not served any charge sheet upon the petitioner nor he has been given an adequate opportunity of being heard. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued in violation of Rule 22 of the BSF Rules, 1969.

4) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply in which it has been submitted that the petitioner proceeded on eleven days earned leave with effect from 01.08.2003 to 18.08.2003 but he overstayed the leave with effect from 19.08.2003. According to the respondents, two registered letters bearing No.9848 dated 16^th September, 2003 and 10035-37 dated 23^rd September, 2003, were issued to the petitioner and sent to his home address calling upon him to join duties forthwith but no response was received from him. It has been submitted that on 2^nd October, 2003 and 17^th October, 2003, two more letters were issued by the respondents to the concerned police authorities directing the petitioner to join duty forthwith but no response was received. 5) According to the respondents when no response was received from the petitioner, Court of Inquiry under Section 62(1) of the BSF Act was ordered on 26^th September, 2003 and Shri S. S. Rawat, Deputy Commandant of the Headquarter was appointed as Presiding Officer to investigate into the circumstances under which the petitioner overstayed the leave. It has been submitted that the Court of Inquiry was completed on 17th October, 2003 and an apprehension roll was issued to SP, Kulgam, to apprehend the petitioner but no response was received from SP, Kulgam. It has been further submitted that when the petitioner failed to joint his duty, an opportunity was given to him by issuing show cause notice along with a c