DHARAMBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.1999 by the Border Security Force (BSF) dismissing him from its services.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the Petitioner joined the BSF as a Constable on 06.08.1990. He was posted to Jammu and Kashmir region in 1997 and while on a "combing" operation, sustained injuries after falling off a truck. He, therefore, reported ill on 19.12.1997 and was placed under medical treatment but his condition did not improve. He was referred for treatment to the Unit Hospital at 'Ganderwal' on account of having severe stomach pains. He reported on 21.04.1998 and was referred to Pantha Chawk Hospital where he was admitted on 22.04.1998. He remained admitted in the said hospital and continuously sought treatment. However, due to non -availability of a specialist there, the petitioner was treated by the doctor on duty. The petitioner avers - without contradiction by the respondents - that the facilities in the place were not standard; so much so that he was not even X -Rayed. His condition worsened to such a degree that he was hospitalized during the period 30.04.1998 and 08.05.1998. There was no marked improvement in his condition. He refers to an incident of 27.05.1998, when he fainted while on duty and had to be assisted to the medical center, where the specialist who examined him recommended him to undergo Ultrasound test. However, that facility was lacking. He continued under medical treatment and has furnished copies of the BSF doctor's prescription, etc. Apparently, this situation continued and on 18.06.1998, he sought leave for 15 days. His immediate superior recommended it; however, the Deputy Commandant rejected the application for leave. It is contended that since the Petitioner's condition worsened, he was unable to report for work. In support of this plea, the petitioner relies on his BSF medical prescriptions for the period 06.07.1998 to 08.09.1998. In one of these, the doctor recommended rest.

(3.) IT is argued that the Petitioner felt dismayed and let down when he was sentenced to 89 days' imprisonment after he returned from 62 days' absence. Having suffered grievously, for which he was not given proper medical treatment and not even allowed full leave to recover and recuperate, he states that his 89 days' imprisonment for unauthorized absence was excessive and severe. It is stated that during the time he was sent for undergoing punishment, he respectfully submitted to the orderly officer/duty officer to allow him to redress his grievances to the Company Commander in accordance with the rules and procedure laid down in this behalf but was not allowed to do so. Counsel points out that the proceedings preceding the detention were not even made known to him at that time. He argues that for justifiable reasons, having served the force with dedication and also having incurred severe injuries in combing operations, (which had led to his illness), it was natural for him to feel disappointed and let down. Consequently, when he returned and was promptly punished, he expressed his disappointment and also registered his anguish by refusing food. Learned counsel relied on the medical papers and prescriptions to say that for the entire duration till September, 1998, the Petitioner was unwell and had not been given proper medical attention. He was justifiably embittered by the unconcern of the Force and higher officers. It was submitted that the Petitioner's behaviour was not so outrageous or reprehensible as to warrant the severest penalty of dismissal. Counsel attacked both the SFC proceedings as unfair and the penalty of dismissal as excessive and shockingly disproportionate under the circumstances.