RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition assails the order dated 24 th November, 1993 passed by the Commandant, 163 Battalion (respondent No.3 herein) and the order dated 27 th December, 2005 passed by the Director General, Border Security Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (respondent No.2 herein).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the instant petition to the extent necessary are briefly noticed hereafter. In the year 1990, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Border Security Force (BSF). In the year 1993 while he was posted with 163 Battalion of the BSF at Shillong, he proceeded on 45 days earned leave with effect from 13th May, 1993 to 29th June, 1993 for the reason of his sister's marriage. The petitioner has claimed that there was a spate of bereavements in his family between 13th May, 1993 and July, 1995. In the writ petition, it is urged by the petitioner that real uncle of the petitioner died on 17th May, 1993; his father died in June, 1993; his grandmother died in July, 1995 and wife of his elder brother died on 2nd January, 1995. The petitioner also claims that he was suffering from a number of diseases between 10 th July, 1993 and 24th September, 1993. The fact of the case is that the petitioner did not return to duty and rejoin his battalion despite expiry of his sanctioned leave. He was required by the respondents to join his duty by the letter dated 8th July, 1993 but he neither responded to the letter nor returned for duty. As a consequence, in terms of Section 62 of the BSF Act, a Court of Inquiry was conducted to investigate the reasons under which the petitioner was overstaying the leave.

(3.) A perusal of Rule 28A of the BSF Act would show that inasmuch as the petitioner was dismissed when he was posted at Shillong, his appeal would lay to the Inspector General who was having jurisdiction over the Shillong area. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order to the competent authority.