IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON:15.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 23.10.2025 PAWAN KUMAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Saigeeta Srivastava, Sr. Panel counsel for the respondent/Union of India ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the show-cause notice dated 10.08.2017(Annexure P-6), order dated 19.08.2017(Annexure P-7) whereby permanency of services of the petitioner has been cancelled and termination order dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure P-9) passed by the respondents, whereby his services as Constable (General Duty) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) were dispensed with during the course of training.

He further seeks issuance of directions to the respondent for re-

instatement of petitioner in service with immediate effect and all consequential reliefs and to allow the petitioner to complete his basic training upon reinstatement.

2. Brief Facts The petitioner was appointed as Constable General Duty (Recruit)

in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force on 02.02.2012 and was assigned Force No. 120280999 under the 28th Battalion, Jatusana, Rewari. He was required to undergo a 27-week basic training at 44th Battalion, Belgaum, Karnataka. During training, he claims to have suffered a single seizure episode, for which he received treatment at KLE Hospital, Belgaum, and was certified fit to continue training with medication. Despite medical certification, the petitioner was relegated from basic training on 29.10.2012 due to prolonged absence on medical grounds. He continued treatment as an outpatient over the next few years and was eventually restored to SHAPE-I medical category in March 2017.

In 2017, the petitioner was again sent for basic training at BTC Bhanu, Panchkula. On 19.06.2017, he left the training center without prior permission, citing personal and family exigencies, and did not report back despite repeated official communications. On 10.08.2017, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice for unsatisfactory progress in training. Subsequently, the confirmation of his service, made in 2015, was cancelled on 19.08.2017, and his service was terminated on 10.10.2017 under Rule 17(iii) and Rule 21 of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Rules, 1994 (inshort ITBP Rules, 1994). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the show-cause notice and termination order, claiming that the relegation and termination were illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the termination of his service and cancellation of his confirmation were wholly illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the ITBP Rules, 1994. It is submitted that the initial relegation from basic training in 2012 was wrongful, as it was made despite the petitioner being medically fit and certified by competent doctors to continue training with medication.

The counsel argued that the petitioner was never afforded a proper opportunity to complete his basic training, and the subsequent proceedings, including the show-cause notice dated 10.08.2017 and termination order dated 10.10.2017, were issued in a manner de hors the rules and without adherence to due procedure. It is emphasized that personal hardships, including family exigencies, contributed to his temporary absence from the training center in 2017, and that the authorities failed to take such circumstances into consideration.

He further submitted while invoking Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, that his right to equality, fair treatment, and livelihood were violated. Consequently, praying for quashing of the impugned orders and reinstatement with continuity of service and all at