Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Kumar Jatav vs Border Security Force on 7 January, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/5
2025:CGHC:889-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 212 of 2021
Ajay Kumar Jatav S/o Shri Roshan Lal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And
Post Kathumar District Alwar Rajasthan., District : Alwar, Rajasthan
... Appellant
versus
1 - Border Security Force Through Its Director General New Delhi., District :
New Delhi, Delhi
2 - Commandant Tac Headquarters 41bn. Border Security Force Koyalibeda
District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. S.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
07/01/2025
1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN impugned order dated 13.04.2021, passed by learned Single Judge, in 2/5 WPS No. 280 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/writ appellant has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of constable in October, 2005 under the respondents. On 10.07.2014, a show cause notice was issued to him under Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short 'the Rules of 1969'). By the said show cause notice, an explanation was sought from the petitioner, as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. Though the petitioner filed his reply on 13.08.2014, immediately thereafter another show cause notice was issued on 14.08.2014. He again submitted his reply on 17.08.2014. Considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed on 20.09.2014, retiring the petitioner from service of the Border Security Force, which was under challenge in the writ petition. *******After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, considering the large number of acts of indiscipline/misconduct on the part of the petitioner, for which he has been penalized in the past and there was strong reason to retire him from service. The said order dated 13.04.2021 is under challenge in the present writ appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the ACR of the petitioner was very good, which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. Though there may be some disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, yet he may be afforded an opportunity to put up his case and to improve his 3/5 conduct. The learned Single Judge has erred in considering the nature of work and seriousness of responsibilities. However, they should have considered that the petitioner had worked with sincerity. The superior officers of the Border Security Force were not happy with the petitioner and the order has been passed arbitrarily. There was no sufficient material available with the respondents to prematurely retire the petitioner.
*******He would further submit that the learned Single Judge should at least have granted an opportunity to file a departmental appeal as provided under the Rules of 1969. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellant and would submit that the petitioner was engaged in a large number of acts of misconduct and indiscipline and for which he was penalized on various occasions and considering his past conduct, the authorities have considered that it would not be in the interest of the force to kept him remain in the Border Security Force and have retired him from the service. His track record does not make him entitled for reinstatement of his service. Earlier, he was terminated vide order dated 25.02.2006 and in the departmental appeal, the order of termination was sympathetically considered and he was reinstated in service by modifying the punishment of termination into one of rigorous imprisonment in force custody. Considering his overall service record, 4/5 his retirement from the force is justified and he is not entitled for any relief.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that on 13 occasions, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in between 2006 to 2014. The learned Single Judge has also considered that the service in uniformed forces cannot be compared with the service rendered under the public sector undertakings or a government or semi-government establishment. The employment under the uniformed force has its own inbuilt disciplines and has to be strictly adhered to. There are serious responsibilities, which are reposed upon the forces by the government, which are to be discharged by the person appointed in these forces by maintaining discipline in discharging of their duties. The nature of work in forces requires the dedication, commitment and sense of responsibility, which he had undertaken at the time of joining of the forces.
7. Rule 26 of the Rules of 1969 provides the retirement of enrolled persons on the ground of unsuitability and it is upon the satisfaction of the commandant that he may, after giving the opportunity of showing cause, retire such enrolled person from the force. In the present case also, considering his past conduct, the petitioner has been retired vide order dated 20.09.2014.
8. The learned Single Judge, after considering the various judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. 5/5 Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469, State of UP and others v. Ashok Kumar Singh and another, (1996) 1 SCC 302 and the judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Dhruv Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, decided on 06.07.2017, in WP No. 1169 of 2010 (S) came into conclusion that the action of the respondents are justified and there is no ground to interfere with the order of retirement of the petitioner.
9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case.
10. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Single Judge and the appeal being devoid of merits, liable to be and hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved