news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses petition challenging dismissal of BSF personnel | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Aug 20
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court today dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal order of a BSF personnel issued as back as in June 2001.
The petitioner, Abdul Razak, of BSF, who was dismissed from service vide order in June, 2001, passed by the Commandant BSF on the ground of petitioner’s unauthorized absence, challenged the order of his dismissal from service by filling petition No 2650/2001.
Advocate Surinder Kour, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted in the court that before dismissing the petitioner from service neither he (petitioner) was informed about the adverse reports which were being relied upon against him nor was he allowed an opportunity for explaining his position and defending himself. On the other hand, Baldev Singh CGSC, appearing for the Union of India, submitted that petitioner was served with the show-cause notice on May 17, 2001 under registered cover along with the acknowledgement. The acknowledgement was received back by the respondents indicating the acceptance of said notice by the petitioner. As such in the face of said acknowledgement, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that no show cause notice was served upon him.
Justice YP Nargotra of J&K High Court Jammu Wing, after hearing both the sides, observed that in the face of acknowledgement from the postal authorities, indicating the receipt of notice by the petitioner, it can be safely presumed and accepted that the said show cause notice was served upon the petitioner at his residential address. Once the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, the first requirement of Rule 22 stood compiled with. So far as the second submission that the petitioner was not informed about the adverse reports, the Judge further observed that so far as the record of enquiry is concerned, the same is also untenable. The principle ground on which the petitioner has been dismissed from service was his absence from duty without leave. The said fact was duly communicated to the petitioner through show-cause notice served upon him. Therefore, he cannot successfully urge that he was not informed about the adverse reports against him before ordering his dismissal. With these observations Court dismissed the petition. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
