LAWS(DLH)-2001-4-44

UNION OF INDIA Vs. HEAD CONSTEBLE PYARE LAL

Decided On April 30, 2001
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
HEAD CONSTABLE PYARE LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this Appeal is whether there was any material before Commandant to retire Respondent under Rule 26 and whether it was obligatory on him to record satisfaction that it was inexpedient and impracticable to take disciplinary proceedings to logical conclusion in order to take recourse to administrative action.

(2.) Respondent joined BSF in 1968. He was charged of allowing NAKA (illegal passage on border) for Rs.1,000.00 on 30.3.1974. Commandant ordered recording of evidence against him under Rule 48 of BSF Rules on 11/09/1974. Three prosecution witnesses were examined in this but no further disciplinary proceedings were taken pursuant thereto. On the contrary he issued a show cause notice to Respondent on 16/01/1975 under Rule 26 of BSF Rules for his retirement from service. Respondent submitted his reply but Commandant found it unsatisfactory and passed order dated . 26/2/1975 ordering his retirement from service. He filed a revision against this which was rejected vide order dated 5/8/1975. He then filed CWP 1380/75 to challenge the action primarily on the plea that once Commandant had taken recourse to Rule 48, providing for ordering of record of evidence, he could not abandon the disciplinary proceedings and resort to administrative action under Rule 26. It was also urged that for this he had at least to * record satisfaction that it was inexpedient and impracticable to carry on the disciplinary proceedings leading to holding of SSF Court and also to record reason for taking to administrative side. Support for this was sought from a Supreme Court Judgment in Chief. of Army Staff Vs. Maj Dharmpal ( AIR 1985 SC 703)

(3.) Appellants contested this position and justified the action repelling both contentions. It was explained by them that commandant had taken action on the basis of evidence on record and that neither BSF Act nor Rules created any bar to act on administrative side subsequent to initiation of disciplinary proceedings.