AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant at length.
The issue pertains to the dismissal of a constable belonging to the B.S.F. 42nd Battalion. The Appellant had joined this battalion on 29.7.2001 as transfer. The Appellant was sanctioned leave w.e.f. 8.8.2001. Thereafter, the leave was extended. When the Appellant applied for further leave on 30.8.2001, which request was received in the office of the Commanding Officer on 20.11.2001, the leave was not sanctioned and he was recalled by letter dated 26.11.2001. The Appellant, after receiving the letter, further asked for 6 months'' extension of leave. He was sent reminders on 28.12.2001 and by telegram on 7.1.2002, he was asked to re-join his duties.
From the order of the learned single Judge, we may note that court of inquiry was also directed. The court of inquiry found that the Petitioner was overstaying leave without sufficient cause and was recommended for disciplinary action. In order to take disciplinary action, an apprehension roll was issued to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh, by registered letter dated 21.1.2002.
It appears that the Appellant made an application on 25.1.2002 stating therein that he was fit and ready to join on 26.1.2002 but he still did not join the post. He was given one more opportunity by show-cause-notice dated 22.2.2002 for submitting reply. The Appellant did not reply and consequently was dismissed from service w.e.f. 26.3.2002 u/s 11(2) of the Act read with Rules 177 and 22 of B.S.F. Rules, 1969.
Learned single Judge considered the various arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and also placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gouranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura and Another, , dismissed the writ Petition preferred by the Petitioner.
At the time of the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the Appellant learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner was dismissed without holding a court of inquiry and further no sufficient opportunity was given to him.
The issue of powers of dismissal from service and the court of inquiry has been considered in the case of Gouranga Chakraborty (supra).
From the above, it is clear that the court of inquiry and imposing punishment by way of dismissal are 2 different acts which can be done under the Act and are not related to each others.
In the instant case, the Appellant is a member of a Paramilitary Force. In spite of the fact intimated to him that his leave is not sanctioned, he was asked to report and he still did not report. The action of the Respondents in such circumstances, and as noted in the judgment of the learned single Judge at the relevant time there was a tension on the India-Pakistan border, cannot be faulted with. The learned single Judge has rightly noted that a notice was given to the Appellant who did not reply.
We find no reason to interfere with the punishment imposed or with the impugned judgment. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.