211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19157-2018 DECIDED ON: 26.08.2025 BHAGIRATH MAL .....PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Ms. C.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel for respondent-UOI SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer This civil writ petition is preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order of conviction and dismissal dated 10.04.2017, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 whereby the appeal was dismissed.

2. Brief Facts The petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) on

07.09.2006 as a cook and remained posted with 162 Battalion BSF at the Thrissur camp till his dismissal on 10.04.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been placed under low medical category being a case of generalised seizure disorder since 2011 and was categorized accordingly by the BSF medical board. On 05.01.2017, while proceeding to his duty at the battalion mess at Thrissur, he allegedly suffered a seizure attack and lost consciousness. According to the petitioner, he regained consciousness only on 12.01.2017 at New Delhi Railway Station, whereafter his family members took him to Narnaul for medical treatment. He again suffered a seizure on 22.01.2017 and reported back to his unit on

29.01.2017.

The authorities, however, treated the petitioner’s absence as “Absent Without Leave (AWL)” from 05.01.2017 to 29.01.2017. A Court of Inquiry was conducted, and thereafter, charge-sheet was issued under Section 19(a) of the BSF Act, 1968. The Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) was convened on 08.04.2017 at Thrissur, and vide order dated 10.04.2017, the petitioner was convicted and dismissed from service. His statutory appeal, filed with delay due to medical reasons, under Section 117 of the BSF Act read with Rule 167(2) of the BSF Rules, was dismissed by respondent no.3 on 23.03.2018 without considering the case of the petitioner on merits.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 10.04.2017 and 23.03.2018, reinstatement with back wages, and consequential benefits.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders of conviction and dismissal are liable to be set aside being patently illegal and violative of statutory provisions as well as principles of natural justice. It is argued that the entire proceedings before the Summary Security Force Court stood vitiated inasmuch as the convening authority, i.e. the Commandant himself, also participated in the trial, which is in direct contravention of Rule 60(1) of the BSF Rules, 1969, rendering the proceedings erroneous in law. It is further urged that Rule 63(2) of the BSF Rules, which mandates appointment of a defending officer unless specifically declined by the accused in writing, was also violated, and no opportunity of proper defence was provided to the petitioner.

Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been a medically categorized to the seizure disorder category by the BSF medical board since 2011, and was re-categorized in the seizure category in March 2017 and the alleged absence from 05.01.2017 to 29.01.2017 was not willful but the result of a two seizure episodse beyond his control. The doctrine of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea squarely applies, and punishment of dismissal for a medical condition is harsh in law. It is further advanced that while deciding the statutory appeal, the appellate authority failed to condone the delay despite sufficient cause being shown and ignored the medical evidence on record. Thus, the impugned orders suffer from arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of th