news details |
|
|
| HC quashes dismissal order of BSF personnel after 8 yrs | | | Earlyb Times Report
Jammu, Feb 07- Justice Sunil Hali of J&K High Court Jammu Wing today set-aside the order of dismissal of petitioner Devendra Singh, a BSF personnel, who was dismissed from service on April 28, 2001, with the direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner.
The petitioner who was appointed as constable in BSF on January 16, 1996 had remained absent from duty from October 14, 2000 to January 4, 2001, the reasons for the absence of petitioner was that his wife had undergone an operation and remained hospitalized for the period the petitioner remained absent from duty. The notices were issued to the petitioners to resume duty. After the petitioner reported for duty an offence report was prepared on January 19, 2001. Commandant ordered the trial of the petitioner by the Summary Security Force Court. On April 28, 2001 Summary Security Force Court was constituted which was presided over by the Commandant. The petitioner having pleaded guilty to the charges was dismissed from the service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order through Adv Surinder Kour on various grounds including that no court of enquiry has been conducted in terms of Rules 170 of the BSF Rules.
Justice Hali, after hearing Advocate Surinder Kour appearing for the petitioner and Advocate Ajay Sharma appearing for the Union of India and others, observed that in the present case petitioner had submitted medical report regarding the illness of his wife. Since no opportunity has been given to the petitioner on this count, it cannot safely be said that subsequent enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner are in conformity with the BSF Act and rules. It is only after the petitioner has been declared deserter, the offence report is prepared and ROE recorded. So, holding of Court of Enquiry is mandatory before a person is declared deserted u/s 62 of BSF Act. It is no longer res-integra that non-observation of procedure violates the right of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution. Court hold that no Court of Enquiry in the present case has been conducted, as the same is not reflected in the record produced by the respondents. The petitioner has not been supplied copy of the enquiry proceedings, with these observations Court set-aside the order of dismissal of petitioner and directed respondents to re-instate the petitioner. In case the respondents desired to hold enquiry against the petitioner, they may hold such enquiry. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
