GANGA SINGH SENGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was serving as a Head Constable being Head Constable No. 66243089 in the 22nd Battalion of the Border Security Force with Headquarters at Firozepur, Punjab. By that time the petitioner had put in nearly 18 years of service. The competent authority on 11.1.84 issued a show- cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why he should not be retired from service on the basis of the allegations made in the show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice and he stated that there were no adverse remarks in any of his Confidential Report nor any remarks had been communicated to him. While referring to the Departmental Book P.C.R's. Procedure and Instructions, 1983 issued by the Personnel Directorate Para 56, the petitioner also raised an objection that these entries were not communicated to him and as such he had no chance to make a representation against these adverse remarks. According to the petitioner, he had an unblemished record of 14 years and Rule 26 of the B.S.F Rules was not applicable to his case. The respondents after considering the reply to the show cause notice vide order dated 5.7.84 directed compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service w.e.f 4 .10.84 (copy of this order is annexed to the petition as Annexure P-3). The petitioner had preferred an appeal against this order in terms of Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act. However, on 9.4.85 the petitioner was informed that the appeal of the petitioner had been rejected. Both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds that the order of the Appellate Authority is a non-speaking order. The entire action of the respondents is in violation to the principles of natural justice. No remarks exist on the service record of the petitioner which would justify compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service. It was also alleged that the petitioner was no way unsuitable for retention in the service. Besides that, the order was arbitrary.

(2.) The respondents have filed a detailed affidavit stating that the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and there were no grounds which would justify quashing of the orders passed by the initial and the Appellate Authority. According to the respondents, the petitioner was awarded seven punishments by the Commandant of the Unit from time-to-time and as the petitioner had failed to improve despite grant of opportunity, the authorities were compelled to pass the impugned orders. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it has been stated that the petitioner was granted no opportunity to know about the bad entries and at the time of appearance of the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General, the petitioner was compelled to put his signatures on all the entries, as is evident from the fact that they were with the same pen and ink. It was also averred that Rule 26 is not attracted.

(3.) This writ petition challenging the orders dated 5.7.84 and 9.4.85 was filed by the petitioner in May, 85. The writ petition came up before the Court from time-to-time and was listed before the Court on 6.2.2003 on which date nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner. Again the case was taken up for hearing on 31.5.2006 when the Court passed the following orders: