SHAHEEDU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash Order No.1077/Estt/Disc/99/100003 dated 09.09.1999 issued by Commandant, 102 Bn., BSF, respondent No.5 herein, whereby the petitioner came to be dismissed from service with effect from 08.09.1999. Petitioner is also seeking to quash Order No.6/136/2002/BSF/CLO(D&L)/7541-45 dated 23.09.2002 issued by Deputy Inspector General, BSF, respondent No.4 herein, whereby the statutory petition of petitioner came to be rejected being devoid of merit.

(2.) The facts in short, as averred in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 29.12.1993 and after training posted in 102 Bn., BSF. It is averred that there was no male member in his family and on 06.06.1999 when he was posted in a border area, he received information about the illness of his wife and the petitioner informed the Commandant on telephone. Further, it is averred that after recovering from illness, he rejoined the Unit on 20.06.1999. However, on 14.07.1999 he was placed under suspension and a charge sheet under Section 16(d) and 19(a) of BSF Act, 1968 was served upon him on 06.09.1999. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.09.1999 he was placed under open arrest with immediate effect. It is averred that the respondents without following the provisions of BSF Act and the Rules framed there under issued Order No.1077/Estt/Disc/99/100003 dated 09.09.1999, whereby the petitioner came to be dismissed from service with effect from 08.09.1999. Further, it is averred that feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, BSF, however, the same too came to be rejected vide Order No.6/136/2002/BSF/CLO(D&L)/7541-45 dated 23.09.2002 being devoid of merit.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that the petitioner was not given free and fair trial and the respondents without following the BSF Act and the Rules dismissed the petitioner from service. She further argued that the punishment awarded is also not proportionate to the offence, if at all committed by the petitioner.