DINESH KUMAR Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition to challenge the orders dated 27th May, 2007 and 24th December, 2007 passed by the respondents. By the first order dated 27th May, 2007 the respondents i.e. the Border Security Force have terminated the services of the petitioner who was serving with them as a Constable, under Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. The subsequent order dated 24th December, 2007 has been passed rejecting the representation under Rule 28A of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, made by the petitioner seeking reinstatement in service.

(2.) The submission of Ms. Mainee, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner had received various punishments during the tenure of his service, the last of these punishments was awarded in the year 2001, and from that time onwards till the passing of the impugned order on 27th May, 2007 there were no further punishment awarded or adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner which could justify the termination of his services by resort to Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules. She submits that there was no immediate cause for the respondents to invoke Rule 26 when it was done. The service of the petitioner had been blemishless between 2001 and 2007, and the impugned action was, therefore, arbitrary and whimsical.

(3.) Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 reads as follows: