RAI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an erstwhile member of the Border Security Force, for short, the Force, challenges an order purporting to terminate his services under rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, for short, the Temporary Service Rules.

(2.) The petitioner, who had served the Indian Army for over 20 years had on discharge from the Army joined the Force on Oct. 1, 1968, as an Inspector. The petitioner was admittedly awarded commendation certificates by the Inspector General of Police in appreciation of his services rendered during the liberation of Bangladesh. It appears that a Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Commandant and D.I.G. to investigate a complaint against the petitioner of having failed to carry out lawful orders and of misbehaviour with the Deputy Commandant and the Assistant Commandant and as having been found in a state of intoxication. No formal charge was, however, framed against the petitioner and on the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Inspector General purported to terminate the services of the petitioner under Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules.

(3.) The petitioner assails the impugned order, inter alia, on the grounds that Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Pules had no application to the petitioner who was governed by the Border Security Force Act 1968, and the Rules framed thereunder; that the order of termination, though ex facie innocent, is punitive in Character inasmuch as the charge of misbehaviour and failure to carryout lawful orders were the real foundation of the order and not only its motivation; that in terms of the relevant Rules, the petitioner having been duly absorbed in the Service, he was entitled to continue in service until the age of superannuation or until he was removed in accordance with the Rules; and that in any event, the Deputy Inspector General, who passed the order, was not competent to terminate the services of the petitioner.