(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by Union of India and its functionaries challenging the judgment dtd. 24/11/2022 delivered by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition preferred by one Suvasis Dey (hereinafter referred to as Suvasis) being WPA 2074 of 2008.
(2.) The facts in brief are as follows. Suvasis was initially appointed to the post of Constable under the 46 battalion (in short, 46 Bn) of the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as BSF) on 18/2/2003. While he was working in the said post, the Commandant of the 46 Bn being the respondent no.6/ the appellant no.5 herein suspended Suvasis vide memo dtd. 10/6/2007 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, pursuant to a memo dtd. 23/7/2007 issued by the appellant no.5, the Record of Evidence (in short ROE) proceedings were initiated. The ROE was prepared upon hearing Suvasis and granting him opportunity to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses and to produce defence witnesses. Upon conclusion of the said proceedings, the copies of the same were served upon Suvasis vide memo dtd. 22/9/2007 issued by the appellant no.5. Thereafter vide memo dtd. 22/9/2007, the appellant no.5 took a decision to try Suvasis by holding a Summary Security Force Court (in short SSFC). Suvasis was thereafter tried by SSFC and vide memo dtd. 24/9/2007, the said appellant no.5 imposed a punishment of dismissal from service and Suvasis was struck off from the strength of 46 Bn. Aggrieved by the said order, Suvasis submitted a statutory petition on 8/10/2007 but the same was dismissed by an order dtd. 31/12/2007. Challenging inter alia the order of the appellate authority, Suvasis preferred the writ petition in the year 2008 and the same was disposed of about 14 years thereafter by the judgment impugned in the present appeal.
(3.) Records further reveal that the stay application filed in connection with the appeal was disposed of by an order dtd. 1/4/2024. The operative part of the said order runs as follows: