Border Security Force Personnel Dismissal Case

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has made a ruling in the case involving a Border Security Force personnel dismissal. The appellant had sought reinstatement after being dismissed from service, but the Division Bench’s decision has now been overturned. Stay tuned for details!

Facts

The appellant had 17 years of service by the date of the incident.
The appellant applied for leave from 10 February 2007 to 1 March 2007, which was sanctioned.
On 16 April 2007, he was charged with misconduct under Section 19 (b) of the BSF Act 1968.
The appellant contacted the Unit Adjutant for an extension of leave citing family circumstances, including the abduction of his niece.
The cause of misconduct arose because he rejoined his duties on 4 April 2007.
A statutory petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Director General, BSF on 13 June 2007.
Dismissal of appellant from service was set aside by the learned Single Judge.
Proceedings were remitted to the Director General of the Border Security Force for reevaluation of the punishment.
The Division Bench, in an appeal, reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge.
The Division Bench did not agree with the remittance of proceedings and reconsideration of punishment.
The alternate punishment to be imposed should not be dismissal or removal from service as per the Division Bench.

Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings

Analysis

Appellant contacted his Unit Adjutant for extension of leave.
Submitted application for extension of leave belatedly.
Penalized in the past for unauthorized absence without leave.
Has seventeen years of service.
Explanation for seeking further extension has not been rejected as false or incorrect.
The Division Bench did not condone his conduct due to belonging to a disciplined force.
Past conduct militates against granting an order of reinstatement in service.
The appellant will be treated as discharged from service after completing twenty years of pensionable service.
No back wages will be granted between the original dismissal date and completion of pensionable service.
Arrears of pension entitled to the appellant must be paid within three months.
Considering the appellant’s nearly seventeen years of service, a view facilitating pension after twenty years is deemed appropriate.