JANAK RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of order dated 24/26.1.2000 issued by the Commandant, 53 Bn, Border Security Force, dismissing the petitioner from service and order dated 27.7.2000 passed by respondent no. 2, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and also for quashing the departmental inquiry proceedings and the charges framed against him.

(2.) Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Cook with the Border Security Force on 7.4.1995. His designation was changed to that of Sweeper on 22.5.1995. While he was availing his annual leave in January, 1999, he was falsely implicated in FIR No. 362 dated 27.3.1998, registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, Haryana. As is evident from the judgment of the learned trial Court in the aforesaid criminal case, the alleged incident took place on 12.3.1998. After availing the leave, the petitioner re-joined his duty. He was not even aware of the pendency of the case against him. When the Unit of the petitioner came to know of the case against the petitioner, he was directed to proceed on leave and to face the criminal case and join back only after clearance therein. The petitioner filed leave application. When the petitioner approached the Unit in October, 1999 to allow him to join duty, the same was refused. Taking his absence from duty from 23.6.1999 to 21.8.1999 and further from 23.8.1999 to 23.8.2000, the petitioner was dismissed from service without affording him proper opportunity of being heard. The criminal case was got registered by the neighbours, which ultimately was found to be false and the same resulted in acquittal of the petitioner and other accused vide judgment dated 15.3.2000. Immediately after the petitioner came to know about the order of dismissal, he preferred statutory appeal, which was dismissed by passing a totally cryptic and non-speaking order on 27.7.2000.

(3.) Assailing the aforesaid order, Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act') provides that in case of absence from duty for a period of thirty days, a Court of Inquiry shall be appointed. In the case of the petitioner, Court of Inquiry was not appointed. Procedure as prescribed for in Rules 170 to 176 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules'), provide in detail as to how inquiry is to be conducted. Rule (2) 22 of the Rules enables the competent authority to terminate any employee where it is satisfied that trial of such person is inexpedient or impracticable.