UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against judgement dated 13.07.2001 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in SWP No. 439/1999 whereby the order passed by the appellant dismissing the respondent from service was set aside and the respondent reinstated while leaving the appellant free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. We have heard Mr. Varinder Kumar, Deputy Commandant, Border Security Force, who has assailed the judgement passed by the Ld. Single Judge inter alia on the ground that the respondent had failed to avail of an efficacious alternative remedy under Rule 28 of The Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) therefore was not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that there was no procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the respondent and the finding with regard to non -compliance with Rule 20 to 22 was wholly misplaced as the issuance of show cause notice and the Inquiry held against the respondent had provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the respondent, that the Court of Inquiry held u/s 62 of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) beside other material before the Commandant was sufficient for the Commandant to arrive at the conclusion that the trial of the respondent was inexpedient, that the Ld. Single Judge had ignored settled law that it was not open to the court to re -appreciate the reasons for holding of trial of an employee to be inexpedient, that the Ld. Single Judge had failed to take into account that overstay of leave by a member of a disciplined force constituted a very serious offence and could not be permitted to the detriment of discipline in a force like the BSF, that the conclusions by the Ld. Single Judge were based purely on conjectures and surmises, therefore the judgement was not sustainable.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned judgement reveals that the respondent received notice Annexure C -3 on 01.08.1998 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service as he had remained absent without leave w.e.f. 21.05.1998. Contents thereof are being reproduced since the same are relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal:

(3.) The show cause notice was issued in exercise of power under Rule 22(2) of the Rules.