Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC

Background

Rattan Lal was a BSF constable who had served for almost 16 years as a welder in the unit repair organization. In this time, he was awarded 15 cash rewards for his work but was also punished six times for various disciplinary violations. This included consuming alcohol on duty, overstaying his leave, and also using unbecoming language towards a superior officer. A Board of Officers reviewed his conduct in 2003 and issued a warning, stating that failure to improve would lead to retirement on grounds of unsuitability.

However, his behavior did not change. Thus, he was compulsorily retired on July 31, 2006. Aggrieved, Rattan Lal filed a writ petition challenging his retirement order.

Arguments

Ms. S. Kour, representing Rattan Lal, argued that the retirement order was arbitrary and disproportionate. She argued that Lal had also received multiple cash rewards, which showcased his great value to the force. She further submitted that his compulsorretirement amounted to double jeopardy as he was already punished for prior infractions. Citing Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India (2022 INSC 724), she impressed that service termination must be based on valid, objective grounds.

Mr. Vishal Sharma, representing the Union of India, countered that Lal's behavior had been consistently unsuitable for the force. He submitted that Lal had been repeatedly warned and yet he continued to engage in misconduct. He relied on Sardari Lal v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 1553 of 1988), and argued that an individual's entire service record must be considered while evaluating their suitability for continued service in the force.

Court's Findings

Firstly, the court noted that Rule 26 of the BSF Rules allows a personnel to be retired if they are found unsuitable for continued service, but only after they are given an opportunity to respond. The court found that BSF satisfied this requirement, as they issued a show-cause notice and Lal responded to it before the final order was passed. THus, no procedural irregularity was found.

Secondly, the court rejected the argument of double jeopardy. It was held that prior punishments for specific infractions cannot preclude the authorities from assessing the employees overall suitability for service. The court observed that the retirement decision was based on repeated instances of misconduct, and not just a single past offense.

Thirdly, citing Amarendra Kumar Pandey(2022 INSC 724), the court held that an administrative authority is permitted to assess an employee's suitability, provided that it is based on some material. However, the court held that judicial review does not extend to reassessing the sufficiency of such material relied on by the authority, unless their decision is clearly perverse or arbitrary.

Thirdly, the court held that while the petitioner had received cash rewards, these were for isolated instances of good work; they did not nullify his misconduct. It was ruled that maintaining discipline in a paramilitary force is crucial and that repeated indiscipline justified compulsory retirement under Rule 26.

Thus, the court found no procedural irregularity in the BSF's decision to retire Rattan Lal. Instead, the court declared the retirement to be based on a comprehensive and fair assessment of his service record. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Decided on: 01-03-2025

Case Title:Rattan Lal v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 120

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. S. Kour, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kour

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI, with Mr. Eisha