SANJAY JAISWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is at the behest of a writ petitioner and directed against an order dated January 24, 2024 passed in W.P.A. No. 11780 of 2021. Appellant as the writ petitioner assailed the order dated April 26, 2021 passed by the DIG/PSO for Inspector General, Ftr HQ BSF, Meghalaya, confirming an order of dismissal from service of the appellant passed by the Commandant, 11 th Battalion of BSF at Shillong, in the writ petition. By the impugned order the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the, appellant was unfairly treated by the authorities. He refers to the earlier order of dismissal from services and submits that, the same was set aside by the High Court. Authorities failed before the Supreme Court also. He submits that, the authorities although allowed the appellant to rejoin his duties, did not take into account the medical condition of the appellant and his wife while passing the fresh order of dismissal from services. He refers to the conduct of the parties and the orders of the writ Court passed from time to time.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the appellant refers to Rule 173 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 and submits proviso to Rule 173 (8) takes away the power of the Court of Enquiry to decide on unauthorized absence. He also refers to Sec. 19 of the BSF Act, 1968 and submits that in respect of absence without leave, Security Force Court is required to be constituted. Therefore, the order of dismissal passed on the basis of the order of the Court of Enquiry was wholly without jurisdiction.