PIARE LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled as constable in the Punjab Armed Police on 15.11.62 and then joined Border Security Force as Head Constable in the year 1968 and was confirmed in the BSF as Head Constable with effect from 14.11.72.

(2.) on the intervening night of 30/31 3-74 in appreciation and recognition of his good work during the ambush laid down in the area of BOP Dal Forward and capturing 37 Kgs. of Opium, (he petitionerwas given appreciation certificate on 30.4.74. Another certificate was issued to him in recognition of exceptionally good work done and displaying exceptional industry and acuteness during the year 1973-74 under CRP Rule 53-A Clause (d). The petitioner was? awarded the certificate in appreciation to the incident which occured on the intervening night of 30/31-3 74 when he along with his other colleagues opened fire on a gang of smugglers who were trying to cross the border post and in the process captured 37 kgs. of Opium though the smugglers escaped.

(3.) Mr.V.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Rule 48 of the Border Security Force Rules wherein the record of evidence was prepared, on many grounds. He has also assailed the dismissal of service of the petitioner pursuant to Rule 26 of the Rules on the ground that once the petitioner was proceeded by invoking Rule 48 of the BSF Rules initially and record of evidence was prepared from 11.9.74 till 25.9.74 the respondent could not make out a case on the basis of record of evidence recorded under Rule 48 of the Rules to get rid of the petitioner by invoking Rule 26 of the Rules and terminating the services on the ground of unsuitability in terms thereof on 26.2.75. Mr.Sharma has contended that once the authorities have decided to take re-course to Rule 48 they should have either ordered for an action contemplated under the BSFAct and the Rules framed thereunder for a trial or have referred the matter to an appropriate court having jurisdiction. Mr.Sharma has further contended that assuming that the Commandant was appointing authority of the petitioner the Commandant has not applied his mind but has simply complied with the orders of the superiors as termination of petitioner was decided on 8.1.75 and, therefore, show cause notice dated 16.1.75 in terms of Rule 26 and order of compulsary retirement dated 26.2.75 was merely a formality and contrary to the provisions of BSF Rules.