The Calcutta High Court dismissed a BSF constable’s plea challenging his dismissal, holding that repeated unauthorised absence and overstaying leave amounted to misconduct in a disciplined force.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Dismissal
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force constable for repeated unauthorised absence and overstaying leave.
Justice Amrita Sinha dismissed the writ petition filed by Sudip Kumar Pal. The Court refused to interfere with the dismissal order dated February 4, 2023, and the appellate order dated June 23, 2023.
The judgment was delivered on April 27, 2026, in Sudip Kumar Pal v. The Union of India & Ors., WPA No.28953 of 2023.
Petitioner Challenged Dismissal Order
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General (PSO), South Bengal Frontier, BSF, on June 23, 2023.
The appellate authority had affirmed the disciplinary authority’s dismissal order dated February 4, 2023.
The petitioner sought quashing of both orders. He also sought reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
Petitioner Alleged Lack Of Jurisdiction
The petitioner argued that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to decide his appeal.
He also alleged malice in law and fact.
Further, he claimed that the authority had relied on documents, including the Court of Inquiry proceedings, without supplying them to him.
He also alleged violation of natural justice.
Petitioner Claimed He Tried To Join Duty
The petitioner submitted that he had produced documents to explain why he could not join service after his leave ended.
He also claimed that he reported for duty on February 4, 2023.
According to him, he did so in terms of the written commitment given to the authority’s representative who had visited his house.
However, he alleged that the authority passed the dismissal order on the same day and did not allow him to rejoin duty.
Rule 22 Of BSF Rules Cited
The petitioner argued that the authority had not complied with Rule 22(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969.
He submitted that the authority had no occasion to invoke the provision against him.
He also argued that the authority could not dismiss him for misconduct without finding that his absence was wilful.
Petitioner Relied On Supreme Court Precedent
The petitioner relied on Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that, in departmental proceedings for unauthorised absence, the disciplinary authority must prove wilful absence.
The petitioner argued that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority recorded such a finding against him.
Respondents Opposed Reinstatement
The respondents opposed the petition.
They submitted that the petitioner took leave from October 19, 2022, to October 28, 2022.
He had to report for duty in the forenoon of October 29, 2022.
Since he did not report, the authorities sent letters to his recorded home address on November 7, November 14 and November 22, 2022.
The letters directed him to join duty. They also warned him that authorities would initiate disciplinary action if he failed to report.
Court Of Inquiry Was Initiated
The respondents stated that the petitioner neither replied to the letters nor sent any message explaining his overstay.
Therefore, the authority appointed an Assistant Commandant to conduct a one-man Court of Inquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968.
Based on the Court of Inquiry remarks, authorities issued an apprehension roll on December 2, 2022, under Section 60 of the Act.
Show Cause Notice Served On Petitioner
The authorities issued a show cause notice dated December 27, 2022, proposing dismissal from service.
They also enclosed the Court of Inquiry records and remarks.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner did not respond.
Later, a constable visited the petitioner’s residence and handed over the show cause notice, previous notices and Court of Inquiry records on February 2, 2023.
The petitioner then gave a handwritten communication stating that he would join duty on February 4, 2023.
Dismissal Order Passed
The respondents stated that the petitioner did not turn up on February 4, 2023.
He also did not send any communication to the office.
The disciplinary authority found that the petitioner had remained absent without sufficient cause from October 29, 2022.
It also found that retaining him in the disciplined force was undesirable.
The authority dismissed him from service with effect from February 4, 2023.
The appellate authority later rejected his appeal dated March 11, 2023.
Court Considers Past Conduct
The Court noted that the respondents had given the petitioner several opportunities before dismissal.
His overstaying leave had been regularised on five earlier occasions.
The record also showed that authorities had fined him for absence without leave.
He had also undergone rigorous imprisonment in Force custody three times for overstaying leave.
No Proof That Petitioner Tried To Join Duty
The High Court considered the petitioner’s claim that he went to join his battalion on February 4, 2023, but authorities did not allow him to resume duty.
However, the Court found no proof to support this claim.
The respondents had specifically denied the allegation.
They consistently maintained that the petitioner neither joined duty nor replied to the notices explaining his absence.
Court Emphasises Discipline In BSF
Justice Sinha observed that the petitioner served in a disciplined force.
The Court said the force cannot tolerate indiscipline or misconduct.
It noted that the BSF secures the country’s borders.
It also prevents trans-border crime, smuggling and unauthorised entry into and exit from Indian territory.
Repeated Absence Treated As Misconduct
The Court found that the petitioner had repeatedly overstayed leave.
It also noted that authorities had punished him in the past.
He had undergone rigorous imprisonment for ten days on October 12, 2000, for remaining absent without cause for 105 days.
He had also undergone rigorous imprisonment for fourteen days on June 14, 2021, for overstaying leave without sufficient cause for 108 days.
No Violation Of Natural Justice
The High Court held that the authorities gave the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
It found no violation of natural justice in the disciplinary proceeding.
The Court also rejected the allegation of non-supply of documents.
It noted that the petitioner never complained to the authority about non-supply.
He also did not send any communication seeking copies of documents.
Authority Was Not Expected To Wait Forever
The Court rejected the argument that the authority acted in haste.
It noted that the petitioner himself informed the Unit Commandant that he would join duty on a particular date.
However, he failed to do so.
The Court said the authority had no reason to wait further and was “not expected to wait for eternity.”
It also observed that a force member cannot “drop in and absent himself as per his own sweet will.”
Authority Can Remove “Black Sheep” From Force
The Court held that the disciplinary and appellate authorities acted within jurisdiction.
Justice Sinha observed that the authority acted under the Act and Rules “to get rid of the black sheep from the Force.”
The Court also distinguished Krushnakant B. Parmar.
It noted that, in that case, evidence showed that the employee had been prevented from signing the attendance register and performing duty.
The Court found no such facts in the present case.
Final Finding
The High Court held that the petitioner deliberately absented himself from work.
It said he failed to use repeated opportunities to correct his conduct.
The Court observed that he displayed a total lack of dedication to his job.
It also said such a member becomes a burden to the Force.
Accordingly, the Court found no error in the dismissal order.
Writ Petition Dismissed
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to grant any relief.
The Court imposed no costs.
It also directed supply of urgent certified photocopies of the judgment, if applied for, after compliance with usual legal formalities.
