(1.) The petitioner worked as a constable of the Border Security Force (BSF, for short). He joined the Force on February 15, 1990. On July 06, 1996, he was served with a notice of show -cause whereby the Commandant of the concerned Battalion, i.e. the respondent No. 4 herein at which he was working at that point of time had informed him that because of the punishments awarded to him and the adverse entries recorded in the petitioner's service book the authority concerned was of the opinion that he was unsuitable for further retention in the Force and proposed to retire him from service in terms of Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. In terms of Rule 26 he was given 15 days' time to give a reply to the said notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on July 26, 1996 disputing the allegations made in the show -cause notice. The reply, however, was not found to be satisfactory to the respondent No. 4 and by Order dated August 10, 1996 he was retired from service with effect from August 31, 1996.
(2.) This order was challenged by the petitioner in an earlier writ petition being C.R. 13826 (W) of 1996. By an Order dated July 17, 2002 a learned Single Judge of this Court had, inter alia, set aside the impugned order dated August 10, 1996 and directed the authority to consider the reply to the show -cause notice by affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a reasoned order. While disposing of the earlier writ petition it was observed that even if Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules empowers the authority to compel a member of the Force to' retire prematurely on the ground of unsuitability, appropriate opportunity was to be given to the delinquent to explain his conduct in reply to the notice.
(3.) Pursuant to the said order the respondent No. 4 gave a hearing to the petitioner and passed an order on February 11, 2003 confirming the earlier stand taken by the respondent No. 4 in the order dated August 10, 1996.