UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Vs. RUKUNUDDIN LASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the judgment and order dated 12.6.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 6481 of 2000, setting aside the order dated 20.6.2000 issued by the appellant No.3 to retire the respondent from sendee on the ground of unsuitability, is under challenge.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent-writ petitioner, who was enrolled as a Cook in the Border Security Force (for short, BSF) in 1995, faced One Man Court of Inquiry in 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Court) constituted under the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, to I enquire into the circumstances under which the respondent contracted second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without taking prior permission from the competent authority. The respondent participated in the enquiry by I. filing written statement. The Court found the respondent to be blameworthy and submitted its report recommending administrative act ion against him. The Commandant, BSF 200 Bn, on receiving the report of the Court, issued a notice under Rule 26 of the Rules to the respondent to show cause as to why the respondent should not be retired from service on the ground of unsuitability for violating Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 vide letter dated 15.3.2000. The respondent was asked to submit his reply on or before 15.4.2000. The respondent failed to submit any reply in response to the above notice. The respondent was however, given another chance to submit reply on or before 10.6.2000 vide letter dated 7.6.2000 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the respondent submitted his reply on 8.6.2000 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). On 20.6.2000 the Commandant passed ;he impugned order of retirement of the respondent from service with effect from 20.6.2000 (evening) stating that the respondent had married one Smti Farhana Begum on 15.3.1998 in violation of Rule 21 of the CCSC Rules, 1964 and that it would be not proper to keep the respondent in service. The said order was communicated to the respondent vide Memo No.Estt/782/200/2000/6544-644 dated 21.6.2000 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commandant, the respondent approached this Court in WP (C) No.6481 of 2000 for setting aside the said order of the Commandant dated 20.6.2000.

(3.) The learned Single Judge relying on a decision of this Court in Trilok Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (3) GLT 558 (2001 (1) GLJ 106) took the view that the order of removal of the writ petitioner from service was harsh and severe and accordingly set aside the order dated 20.6.2000 and remitted the matter back to the competent authority to pass any fresh order of punishment except dismissal.