Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 22 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010184852021
2025:GAU-AS:9342
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5947/2021
NO. 119880627 CONSTABLE (GD) DEBEN SINHA
C COY, 98 BN BSF, S/O DINENDRA NARAYAN SINHA, R/O VILL-ALGAPUR,
P.O.-RAJNAGAR, DIST-CACHAR, P.S.-SILCHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788026
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TOT HE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1
2:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF JAMMU FRONTIER
BSF
PALOURA CAMPUS
JAMMU (J AND K)
PIN-181124
3:THE COMMANDANT
98 BATTALION
BORDER SECURITY FORCE
THQ PALOURA BSF CAMP
JAMMU (J AND K)
PIN-1881124
4:THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
LAW BRANCH
FHQ BSF
NEW DELHI-11100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MR. K MIRA,MR M J QUADIR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. K K PARASAR
Page No.# 2/18 :::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Date of hearing :22.07.2025 Date of Judgment :22.07.2025 Judgment & Order(Oral) Heard Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kamal Krishna Parasar, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 24-07-2020, passed by the Commandant, 98 Battalion of Border Security Force, dismissing him from service in pursuance of the decision arrived at in this connection by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC). The petitioner, herein, has also presented a challenge to an order, dated 19-07-2021, passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal preferred by him and upholding the order, dated 24-07-2020, passed by the Commandant, 98 Battalion of Border Security Force.
3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:
The petitioner had joined the service of the Border Security Force on 15.06.2011, as Constable(GD). The petitioner while being posted at Jammu Frontier, Border Security Force at Paloura, Jammu(J&K), was found sleeping Page No.# 3/18 at his post. The matter on being reported, ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh, had come to the post of the petitioner and on finding him sleeping; had required him to move from his post and proceed to the iron bridge. The petitioner, accordingly, moved towards the iron bridge on his bicycle and was followed by the said ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh on his own bicycle. The petitioner, on reaching the iron bridge; parked his bicycle on the right side of the railing of the iron bridge. It is contended by the petitioner that being frightened, he had on an apprehension of occasioning of an untoward incident, acting on instinct, cocked his rifle. The said ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh then held the barrel of the petitioner's weapon by one hand and caught the petitioner with the other. It is further contended that the petitioner, as ordered, had taken out the magazine from his rifle and put it in his pouch. He had also, on being asked by the ASI as to whether he would kill him, had replied that he had not cocked the rifle to kill him. The matter being escalated to the higher authorities, a charge-
sheet, dated 12-06-2019, came to be issued to the petitioner, leveling four charges against him.
The charges, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:
"CHARGE-SHEET The accused No. 119880627 Constable (GD) Deben Sinha of 98 Bn BSF, is charged with:-
FIRST CHARGE COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS TO SAY, BSF Act, 1968 ATTEMPT TO MURDER, PUNISHABLE Section - 46 UNDER SECTION 307 IPC in that he, at about 2300 hrs, on 10.06.2019. at Iron Bridge in AOR of BOP Krishnapur of 98 Bn BSF, pressed trigger of his loaded personal weapon INSAS Rifle 5.56 MM, Butt No.93, Body No 18585397 towards No 861616349 ASI (GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh of the same Unit with intent to kill him but rifle could not fire due to stoppage.
Page No.# 4/18
SECOND CHARGE BEING A SENTRY SLEEPS UPON HIS POST
BSF Act, 1968
Section - 16(c)
in that he
at about 2235 hrs, on 10.06.2019, at ACP Point No. 07 of BOP Krishnapur of 98 Bn BSF, while performing sentry duty was asleep.
THIRD CHARGE USING THREATENING LANGUAGE TO HIS
BSF Act, 1968 SUPERIOR OFFICER
Section - 20 (b)
in that he,
at about 2300 hrs, on 10.06.2019, at Iron Bridge in AOR of BOP Krishnapur of 98 Bn BSF used threatening language to No. 861616349 ASI (GD) Mithlesh Kumar Singh of the same Unit by saying that "MAIN JAN SE MAR DUNGA TUMHE or words to that effect.
FOURTH CHARGE NEGLECTING TO OBEY A GENERAL ORDER BSF Act, 1968 Section - 22 (e) in that he,
at about 2235 hrs, on 10.06.2019, at ACP Point No. 07 of BOP Krishnapur of 98 Bn BSF, while performing sentry duty, was found in possession of Mobile Phone in contravention to 98 Bn BSF O/No. 7901- 11 dated 13.04.2019."
It is seen that a record of enquiry was directed to be prepared in the matter. During the preparation of the record of enquiry, the authorities had examined the Departmental Witnesses and the deposition of the petitioner was also recorded. On the preparation of the record of enquiry, the Commandant, 98 Battalion, had informed the petitioner vide the communication dated 21-07-2020, of the convening of a Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) trial at 11AM, on 24-07-2020, and a copy of the record of evidence, additional record of evidence along with an original copy of the charge-sheet, dated 21-07-2020, was forwarded to the petitioner.
It is further contended that a perusal of the charge-sheet, dated 12-06- 2019, would go to reveal that the first charge so levelled against the Page No.# 5/18 petitioner, was so framed under the provisions of Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. However, the same was modified in the charge- sheet, dated 21-07-2020, to that of an allegation of a misconduct under section 20(a) of the Act of 1968.
It is contended that the charge-sheet, dated 21-07-2020, was so prepared after the record of enquiry was so prepared. The petitioner appeared before the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) and on conclusion of the same, vide an order, dated 24-07-2020; he was found to be guilty of the first, second and fourth charges on the basis of the guilty plea made by the petitioner to the said charges. With regard to the third charge; the petitioner, herein, having not admitted the same, an enquiry was held and the petitioner was found to be not guilty. Accordingly, the petitioner, on conclusion of the trial by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC), came to be imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. The Commandant, 98 Battalion, vide order, dated 24-07-2020, in view of the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC); proceeded to strike-off the name of the petitioner, herein, from the strength of the Battalion. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved, submitted an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, on consideration of the appeal, proceeded vide order, dated 19-07-2021, to reject the same.
4. Being aggrieved; the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.
5. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has Page No.# 6/18 submitted that both the first charge, levelled against the petitioner, vide the Show Cause Notice, dated 21-07-2020, and the third charge, so levelled against him, vide the charge sheet; are based on the same incident. The learned counsel has submitted that the third charge, having levelled the allegation of the petitioner of using threatening language to his superior Officer by uttering the words "Main Jan Se Mar Dunga Tumhe", not being established in the trial held by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC); the first charge of having committed an offence amounting to attempt to murder, cannot be held to have been established.
6. With regard to the second charge, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, has submitted that the defence of the petitioner, that he had dozed-off while performing the sentry duty, was on account of the mental exhaustion faced by him, which had developed due to the death of his only child and the consequential ailments, thereafter, suffered by his wife.
7. As regards the fourth charge, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, has submitted that the petitioner had carried a mobile phone with him to his duty post on 10-06-2019, however, he had not used it at the post, but, had carried it, inasmuch as, his wife was not keeping well and he was apprehensive about any further deterioration occasioning to her in this connection. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, has further submitted that the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC), during these proceedings, had held the petitioner, herein, to be guilty of the first, second and fourth charges, only on the basis of the guilty plea recorded by the petitioner in the matter. The learned counsel has also submitted that the said guilty plea so recorded, was on a misunderstanding, inasmuch as, the Commandant, 98 Page No.# 7/18 Battalion, had acted as an interpreter during the trial and the same had the effect of compromising the defence of the petitioner, herein.
8. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, has further submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to question the appointment of the Commandant, 98 Battalion, Border Security Force, as the interpreter. Accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that with regard to the first charge, the admission on the part of the petitioner was only to the extent of cocking his rifle and he had not admitted to the allegation that he had pointed the said rifle towards his superior officer and tried to fire the same. The learned counsel has submitted that the guilty plea recorded by the petitioner during the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) pertaining to the second and the fourth charge, ought to have been examined by the authorities by appreciating the reasons advanced by the petitioner in the matter.
9. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that that the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) having been so carried-out contrary to the procedure mandated under the provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, the conclusions as arrived by the said Summary Security Force Court(SSFC); would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the punishment of removal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, herein, would mandate an interference by this Court.
10. Per contra, Mr. Parasar, learned CGC, has submitted that the petitioner, on his own, had recorded the guilty plea with regard to the first, Page No.# 8/18 second and fourth charges. The learned CGC has further submitted that when a rifle is cocked, the bullet comes out from the magazine to the barrel which means that the weapon is ready to fire. It is also submitted by the learned CGC that the evidence coming on record, would go to reveal that the petitioner, herein, had intended to kill his superior Officer, in-as- much as, not only, he had uncocked his rifle, but, he had also pressed the trigger, however, fortunately due to stoppage in the rifle, the bullet was not fired.
11. Mr. Parasar, learned CGC, has submitted that the conduct demonstrated by the petitioner, herein is unbecoming on the part of a member of the disciplined force. The learned CGC has further submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, having been found to be sleeping in his duty post, he had committed an offence covered by the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, and accordingly, he is entitled to exemplary punishment including imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years. With regard to the carrying of a mobile phone by the petitioner, herein, Mr. Parasar, learned CGC, has submitted that there was order issued restraining the Force members from carrying their mobile phones while proceeding for duty in their respective posts and the same was so done so as to check connivance of the Border Security Force personnel with the smugglers during duty hours and such stipulation was required to be strictly followed by all the Border Security Force personnel and any violation, thereof, were strictly to be dealt with by the authorities.
12. Mr. Parasar, learned CGC, has submitted that the plea raised by the petitioner in the writ petition pertaining to he being in mental depression Page No.# 9/18 on account of death of his daughter as well as he having slept-off while on duty on account of the exhaustion suffered by him on account of making his weapon ready for the annual inspection; would not mandate an acceptance because the daughter of the petitioner had passed away on 25- 05-2018 and the incident had occasioned on 10-06-2019. Further, the plea of tiredness due to pending annual weapon inspection is only raised by the petitioner, herein, to gain sympathy in the matter.
13. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the guilty plea of the petitioner was so recorded on a misunderstanding, Mr. Parasar, learned CGC, has submitted that the guilty plea of the petitioner was recorded with regard to the first, second and fourth charges levelled against him and the same was also signed by his friend in the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC). The learned CGC has further submitted that the petitioner, herein, in the appeal as well as in the present proceeding, has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the appointed friend for his trial; was acting in the matter under the influence of the respondent authorities.
14. In the above premises, Mr. Parasar, learned CGC, has submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner, herein, being serious in nature; the penalty of removal from service of the petitioner, would not mandate any interference from this Court.
15. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
Page No.# 10/18
16. The petitioner, herein, was initially issued with a charge sheet, dated 12-06-2019, as noticed hereinabove, and therein, the first charge was so framed against him under Section 46 relating to commission of a civil offence that is to say attempt to murder punishable under section 307 IPC. Further, 3(three) other charges also came to be preferred against the petitioner, therein.
17. The record of enquiry was so prepared basing on the said charge- sheet, dated 12-06-2019. However, after the record of the enquiry was so prepared, the respondent authorities issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner, on 21-07-2020, and therein, the first charge as contained in the charge-sheet, dated 12-06-2019, was changed to a misconduct against the petitioner, herein, under Section 20(a) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, pertaining to assaulting of a superior Officer.
18. The second charge levelled against the petitioner, herein, in both the charge-sheets, dated 12-06-2019, and 21-07-2020, pertains to an allegation under Section 16(c) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, of the petitioner having slept while performing sentry duty in his post. The third charge levelled against the petitioner, herein, relates to commission of a misconduct under section 20(b) of Border Security Force Act, 1968, pertaining to using threatening language to his superior Officer. The fourth charge levelled against the petitioner under section 22(e) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, pertains to neglecting to obey a local order in having kept in his position a mobile phone while performing sentry duty in contravention of the directions issued by the superior authorities in the matter. The second, third and fourth charges in the said charge sheets, Page No.# 11/18 dated 12-06-2019, and 21-07-2020, are the same and it is only the first charge that was modified in respect of the petitioner, herein, in the subsequent charge-sheet.
19. It is also to be noted herein that the record of enquiry was prepared in terms of the first charge sheet, dated 12-06-2019, and the second charge sheet, dated 21-07-2020, was issued only after the record of enquiry was so prepared. Be that as it may, the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) so constituted in the matter, having proceeded against the petitioner basing on the charge sheet, dated 21-07-2020; this Court would consider the same for the purpose of this order.
20. The charges framed against the petitioner, herein, vide the charge- sheet, dated 21-07-2020, being relevant, the same is extracted, hereinbelow:
"CHARGE-SHEET The accused Regt. No. 119880627, Rank - Constable (GD), Name - Deben Sinha of 98 Bn BSF, is charged with:-
FIRST CHARGE 'ASSAULTING A SUPERIOR OFFICER',
BSF Act, 1968
Section - 20(a)
in that he,
at about 2300 hrs, on 10.06.2019. at Iron Bridge in AOR of BOP Krishnapur of 98 Bn BSF, cocked his INSAS Rifle 5.56mm, Butt No.93, Body No 18585397 and threatened to kill No. 861616349 ASI (GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh of the same Unit by pointing the rifle towards him.
SECOND CHARGE 'BEING A SENTRY SLEEPS, UPON HIS POST' BSF Act, 1968 Section - 16 (c) in that he at about 2235 hrs, on 10.06.2019, at ACP Point No. 07 of BOP Krishnapur of 98 Bn BSF, while performing sentry duty was asleep.
Page No.# 12/18
THIRD CHARGE USING THREATENING LANGUAGE TO HIS
BSF Act, 1968 SUPERIOR OFFICER
Section - 20 (b)
in that he,
at about 2300 hrs, on 10.06.2019, at Iron Bridge in AOR of BOP Krishnapur of 98 Bn BSF, used threatening language to No. 861616349 ASI (GD) Mithlesh Kumar Singh of the same Unit by saying that "MAIN JAN SE MAR DUNGA TUMHE or words to that effect.
FOURTH CHARGE NEGLECTING TO OBEY A LOCAL ORDER BSF Act, 1968 Section - 22 (e) in that he,
at about 2235 hrs, on 10.06.2019, at ACP Point No. 07 of BOP Krishnapur of 98 Bn BSF, while performing sentry duty, was found in possession of Mobile Phone in contravention to 98 Bn BSF O/No. 7901- 11 dated 13.04.2019."
21. It is to be noted that in the first charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, herein; there was an allegation that the petitioner had pressed the trigger of his loaded personal weapon towards his superior Officer i.e. ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh, with the intent to kill him but the rifle could not fire due to stoppage. However, in the subsequent charge-sheet, dated 21-07- 2020, it was alleged that the petitioner on cocking his rifle, threatened to kill by pointing the knife towards him. The manner in which the first charge was so projected in the charge-sheet, dated 21-07-2020, and therein, also threat of killing his superior Officer having been alleged; the said charge would have a close nexus with the third charge framed against the petitioner, vide the charge-sheet, dated 21-07-2020, and the said 2(two) charges emanate from the same transaction. The third charge pertains to the using of threatening language by the petitioner, herein, to his superior Officer. It is alleged against the petitioner under the third charge that on 10-06-2019, at about 2300 hours, he had threatened ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh by using the words "Main Jan Se Mar Dunga Tumhe".
Page No.# 13/18
22. The first and the third charge, would go to reveal that the same pertains to the same transaction between the petitioner, herein, and said ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh. The proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) reveals that the petitioner, herein, had pleaded guilty to the first charge but had pleaded not guilty to the third charge.
23. Accordingly, the third charge was enquired into and on such enquiry, the said charge was proved to be not established. The third charge levelled against the petitioner is to the effect that he had by uttering the words "Main Jan Se Mar Dunga Tumhe", or, words to the said effect, used threatening language to his superior Officer. In the first charge, the allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he had cocked his gun and threatened to kill ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh by pointing the rifle towards him while the third charge alleged that the petitioner by using threatening language to the said ASI(GD) by uttering the words "Main Jan Se Mar Dunga Tumhe", had threatened a superior Officer. The threatening as alleged against the petitioner, herein, in the third charge, admittedly, not having been established, in the absence of any further cogent materials brought on record; this Court is of the considered view that the first charge also could not have been held to have been established against the petitioner, in-as-much as, therein, also, the allegation against the petitioner is of holding out of threat to kill his superior Officer and the threat as alleged to have been held out by the petitioner in the first and third charge, emanate from the same transaction.
24. At this stage, it is to be noted that it is the contention of the petitioner that he had pleaded guilty only to the cocking of the rifle which Page No.# 14/18 was stated to have been so done on an instinct and basing on an apprehension and that he had not pleaded guilty to the allegation of having pointed his rifle towards any person, or, threatening anybody. Accordingly, the ingredients of the third charge not being established in the enquiry; under no circumstances, the ingredients of the first charge, can be held to have been established against the petitioner, herein.
25. With regard to the second charge levelled against the petitioner, herein; it is seen that the same was so held to be proved basing on the guilty plea made in relation thereto, by the petitioner during the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC). This charge would be dealt with later, in this order, while dealing with the validity of such guilty plea made by the petitioner.
26. With regard to the fourth charge levelled against the petitioner, herein, which pertains to neglecting to obey a local order of, he, having been found to be in possession of a mobile phone while performing sentry duty on 10-06-2019; this Court notes that the petitioner had given an explanation for the same and it has not been established by the respondents that he had while being in possession of the said mobile phone, used it during the duty period. The petitioner had raised a point that his wife who was in a state of depression and mental shock on account of passing away of their only child, was very serious on 10-06-2019 and he had no time to enquire in detail about her condition and accordingly, he had carried the mobile phone with him to enquire the mental condition of his wife and to console her. The petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation levelled against him that he was acting in connivance with the Page No.# 15/18 smugglers during the duty hours. This Court notes that the said plea of the petitioner was not considered by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) during the trial held in the matter and had held the fourth charge proved only basing on the guilty plea recorded by the petitioner, herein.
27. At this stage, it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the guilty plea of the petitioner, herein, was so recorded by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) on account of a misrepresentation made by the Commandant, 98 Battalion, Border Security Force, during the proceedings of Summary Security Force Court(SSFC). The materials brought on record, reveal that the Commandant of the Battalion, had acted as an interpreter in the trial held against the petitioner, herein. The respondents, by referring to the provisions of Rule 134(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, have submitted that the same mandates the Court to either, appoint an interpreter, or, by itself taking the oath and/or affirmation prescribed for an interpreter at a Summary Security Force Court(SSFC), to act as the interpreter in the matter. It is not brought on record that the Commandant of the Battalion, had, infact, complied with the provisions of Rule 134(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, and it has also not been projected that as to why, an independent interpreter was not appointed in the matter. The Commandant of the Battalion having acted as the Presiding Officer of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC), the plea taken by the petitioner that his admission towards the charge framed against him, was not so recorded correctly, cannot be brushed aside and a bias in the matter emanates from the conduct of the Commandant of the Battalion during the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) convened against the petitioner, herein.
Page No.# 16/18
28. Accordingly, in view of the above position emanating in the matter; this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) initiated against the petitioner, herein; stood vitiated on account of the role played, therein, by the Commandant, 98 Battalion, Border Security Force, in acting as an interpreter and also acting as the Presiding Officer of the said Summary Security Force Court(SSFC). In view thereof, the guilty plea recorded by the petitioner, against the first, second and fourth charge, in the considered view of this Court, could not have been relied upon by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) for holding the said charges, to have been established against the petitioner, herein.
29. At this stage, it is to be noted that the first, second and fourth charge levelled against the petitioner, herein, vide the charge-sheet, dated 21-07- 2020, was held to be proved against the petitioner basing on a guilty plea recorded by him in the proceedings, in question. The guilty plea having been made by the petitioner, in the matter; the same is to be so considered in terms of the provisions of Rules 142 and 143 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. The materials brought on record, reveals that the appellate authority, on considering the matter, had concluded that the procedure required to be followed by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC), was so followed in the matter. However, while recording such conclusion, the appellate authority failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the appointment of the interpreter in the matter. This Court having concluded that the Commandant of 98 Battalion, Border Security Force, being appointed as the interpreter and he, being also the Presiding Officer of the Court; a bias arising in the matter, cannot be ruled-out, moreso, when the issue is in connection with the Page No.# 17/18 guilty plea stated to have been made by the petitioner, herein. The guilty plea having been so made in a proceeding which has been held to be vitiated; the said guilty plea would be of no consequence. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) that the first, second and fourth charge, were held to be proved against the petitioner only basing on the guilty plea made by him in the matter; would not mandate an acceptance of this Court.
30. In view of the above conclusions reached hereinabove; this Court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC); would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the penalty as imposed by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) and communicated to the petitioner, herein, vide the communication, dated 24- 07-2020, hereby stands set aside and quashed.
31. Consequently the order, dated 24-07-2020, striking-off the name of the petitioner, herein, from the strength of the 98 Battalion, Border Security Force, w.e.f. 24-07-2020; also stands interfered with.
32. This Court having interfered with the order, dated 24-07-2020, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, herein; this Court hereby directs the respondent authorities to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in his service. The petitioner, however, would not be entitled to any salaries for the period w.e.f. 24-07-2020, till the date of his reinstatement in service in terms of the directions passed by this Court in the present order.
Page No.# 18/18
33. The petitioner on being reinstated in his service, the respondent authorities shall notionally fix his pay and allowances w.e.f. 24.07.2020, till the date of his reinstatement and the said period shall be regularized for the purpose of seniority, pension, etc.. However, no salaries for the aforesaid period, would be mandated to be released to the petitioner.
34. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner, herein, in his service within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent authorities shall, thereafter, take the follow-up steps for fixing the pay and allowances of the petitioner on his such reinstatement within a period of further 1(one) month from the date of reinstatement in his service.
35. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant