Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 427 (JK)

Vishno Devi v. Union Of India

2010-07-31

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. Krishan Lal, a cook in the Border Security Force, was dismissed from service in the year 1986 for his prolonged unauthorized absence from duty. Before his dismissal, he had suffered eight convictions under Section 19(a) and 19(b) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 while serving in 60 Bn BSF and 58 Bn BSF. After his death, his wife approached this Court by Writ Petition SWP No.343/2007 seeking grant of Family Pension. On being informed that her husband had been dismissed from service, she withdrew the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition. 2. Through the medium of this Writ Petition, which has been filed after the withdrawal of the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of her husband’s dismissal from service, besides a direction to the respondents to pay her Pension. 3. According to the petitioner’s learned counsel, the dismissal of the petitioner’s husband, having been ordered by an incompetent officer, was void abinitio and the petitioner was entitled to question the dismissal of her husband to seek the consequential benefits which would have been otherwise available to her husband but for the dismissal order, additionally because the Dismissal Order was bad in law having been passed without holding any inquiry before the dismissal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the provisions of Rules 22 and 177 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 referred to by the respondents’ learned counsel to meet the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s learned counsel. 5. Rule 177 of the Rules indicates "the Commandant" as a prescribed officer under Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, who may dismiss or remove from service any person under his command other than an officer or a subordinate officer. 6. Petitioner’s husband, who was neither an officer nor a subordinate officer, could thus well be dismissed from service by the Commandant. The dismissal order passed in respect of the petitioner’s husband by the Commandant, Headquarters IG BSF, STC, Dhar Road, Udhampur (J&K) cannot thus be said to suffer from any error of jurisdiction as urged by the petitioner’s learned counsel. The commandant was competent to pass the dismissal order of the petitioner’s husband, which cannot, thus, be faulted. 7. The dismissal order passed in respect of the petitioner’s husband by the Commandant, Headquarters IG BSF, STC, Dhar Road, Udhampur (J&K) cannot thus be said to suffer from any error of jurisdiction as urged by the petitioner’s learned counsel. The commandant was competent to pass the dismissal order of the petitioner’s husband, which cannot, thus, be faulted. 7. The second contention of the petitioner’s learned counsel that no inquiry was held before passing the dismissal order too is found untenable, in that, in terms of Rule 22 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, no inquiry was contemplated before passing of the dismissal order and all that the rule contemplates is the issuance of the show cause notice, issuance whereof the petitioner’s husband before issuance of the dismissal order was not disputed. 8. For all what has been said above, I do not find the petitioner’s husband’s dismissal from service to suffer from any error of jurisdiction or law warranting interference by the Court. Found without merit, this Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.