IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

203 Date of decision: 05.08.2025 CHHOTE LAL ......Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate and Mr. Anuj Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel for respondents-Union of India.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Seeking setting aside of the order dated 30.01.1995 passed by respondent No.3-Commandant, 35 Battalion, Border Security Force, Amritsar, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Director General, Border Security Force, New Delhi, vide order dated 11.12.1998, the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable (General Duty) on 01.02.1990 and was subsequently posted to the 35 Battalion. On account of the petitioner’s unauthorized absence from 13.07.1994 to 30.01.1995, a punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. This disciplinary action was taken invoking the powers conferred by Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the BSF Act, 1968”), read with Rule 177 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the BSF Rules, 1969”).

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the respondents have failed to comply with the statutory provisions contained in Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. It is submitted that, in cases of absence without leave, the statute mandates holding of a Court of Enquiry as per procedure and as prescribed under Rule 173 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. Learned counsel further submits that the mandatory procedural safeguards required for imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service have not been followed by the respondents. The impugned order merely records the petitioner’s absence and order of dismissal was passed summarily without following the prescribed inquiry process. The operative part of the order passed by the Commandant reads thus:-

“I have personally gone through the case of over-

staying from leave with effect from 17.07.94 (FN) in respect of No.90194118 Const Chhote Lal 'A' coy of this Unit. He was given an opportunity through show cause notice vide this office L/No. 35/Bn/Estt-37/94-95/8273 dt. 27 Dec'94 which he has not availed. I am satisfied that he is overstaying leave without any reasonable cause and his further retention in service is not desirable. I, therefore dismiss him from service with effect from 20 Jan'95 (AN) under the power conferred to me vide Sec. 11(2) of BSF Act 1969 read with rule 177 of BSF Rule

19.9.

2 The period of absence from 17.07.94 to 20.1.95 be treated as "Dies-Non". He is hereby struck of strength from this Unit w.e.f. 20.01.95 (AN).”

4. He further submits that the appeal against the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.1998 by passing the following order:-

Ref your application dated 27.6.98 regarding reinstatement in the

2 After carefully considering all the points in your application, all the facts and circumstances of case the competent authority has rejected your appeal being devoid of merit.

3 In view of above, it is informed that your case has been closed and correspondence received if any on the subject in future will not be entertained.

5. He submits that the orders passed by the respondent authorities are not only non-speaking but also demonstrate a failure to comply with the mandatory procedure for imposing the punishment. Consequently, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement.

6. Counsel for the respondents, however, contends that the petitioner’s conduct has been unbecoming of a member of the disciplined force. He submits that the petitioner joined the Border Security Force on 16.10.1990 and was subjected to three separate punishments under Section 19(B) of the BSF Act, 1968, on account of ov