ADITYA PRATAP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. AS Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner had been dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 10.04.2012 for the unauthorized absence and also for recovering the cost of deficient kit/clothing items to the tune of Rs. 3,493.77 say Rs.3,494/- (Rupees three thousand four hundred ninety four) only and Rs.2,302/- on account of railway warrant be recovered from the amounts due to him and be deposited into Govt. Treasury and also I.D. card etc. For easy reference, the impugned order dated 10.04.2012 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:-

(3.) On hearing the submission of Mr. AS Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also on perusal of the writ petition, it is clear that the only ground for assailing the impugned order dated 10.04.2012 is that the petitioner, even if absent without leave, the authority has no alternative but to take action under Section 19 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short 'the said Act of 1968') and Section 19 of the said Act of 1968, does not prescribe the removal or dismissal from service. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that he cannot be dismissed from service for the unauthorized absence and Section 19 of the said Act of 1968 provides only punishment mentioned therein. Section 19 of the said Act of 1968 reads as follows:-