Disciplined Force Employees Not Entitled Overstay Over Leave Period Without Reasons: Meghalaya High Court

Background Facts

Ashwin Patti (Petitioner) was an ex-constable of the Border Security Force (BSF), who was enrolled on December 3, 1997. After completing basic training, he was posted to the 65^th Battalion BSF on December 18, 1998. The petitioner applied for leave on May 24, 2014, which was sanctioned for 50 days. However, he did not avail himself of the sanctioned leave and subsequently applied for another 15 days of earned leave due to his sister's illness. This leave was also granted, but he failed to report back to duty as scheduled. Despite multiple notices and opportunities given to him, the petitioner did not return to duty, resulting in his dismissal from service by the Summary Security Force Court (Respondent).

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition.

The petitioner argued that there were procedural irregularities in the dismissal process. He claimed that all evidence was recorded in English, which he did not understand, thus violating Rule 134 of the BSF Rules, 1969. Additionally, he contended that there was no proper inquiry conducted and that he was not given a fair chance to defend.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that the petitioner had absented himself from duty for 305 days without sufficient reasons. They contended that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to report back to work, but he failed to do so. The respondents emphasized the disciplinary nature of the BSF and cited previous punishments the petitioner had received for similar offenses. They asserted that the dismissal from service was justified given the petitioner's repeated breaches of discipline and failure to comply with orders.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the petitioner had overstayed his sanctioned leave period without sufficient reasons and failed to report back to duty despite repeated notices. It noted that the BSF is a disciplined force and emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline within such organizations. The court relied on the case of Union of India vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad, wherein the Supreme Court held that a Constable overstaying his leave period and thereafter, reporting for work is not entitled to any relief.

The court further observed that conduct of the petitioner was highly unacceptable and he had not maintained discipline in his service, so cannot be allowed to continue in service. The petitioner, being a Constable, more particularly, a member of disciplined force, was bound to obey the order and command of his superior officers. The court relied on the case of Union of India and others vs. Diler Singh wherein the Supreme Court held that a member of the disciplined force is expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings.

The court found that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities to defend himself during the inquiry process but had failed to do so effectively. It concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in the dismissal process and upheld the punishment imposed by the Summary Security Force Court. Ultimately, the court found the dismissal from service justified given the petitioner's conduct and upheld the validity of the dismissal order.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Case No. : WP (C) No.274 of 2016

Case Name : Shri Ashwin Patti vs. Union of India

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. R. Jha, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents : Dr. N. Mozika, DSG with Ms. A. Pradhan, Adv.