Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 37 (JK)

Raghubeer Thakur v. Union of India

2016-02-11

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J. 1. This writ petition is filed, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 13.6.1995, which was issued on the ground of 'unauthorized absence from service'. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner absented from service due to ill-health and he got himself treated at Bangalore, Himachal Pradesh and New Delhi. 2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner got the impugned order of dismissal dated 13.6.1995 when he returned to his residence at Jammu only in the year 2000. Thereafter, he moved two representations dated 5.2.2000 and 11.7.2000 to respondent No. 4 for which no reply was given. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner also issued the Counsel Notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, the Director General Border Security Force, New Delhi, C/o 56 APO, DIG, BSF Frontier Headquarter, Jammu C/o 56 APO and Commandant 136 Bn. BSF on 19.10.2002 and when no action was taken, writ petition was filed in this court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was issued in the year 1995 and the petitioner filed this writ petition after a delay of 8 years, therefore, the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. Further the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not filed any appeal before the appellate authority as provided under Rule 28-A of BSF Rules, 1969. 5. Since the delay in filing the writ petition is explained by stating that the petitioner was not in his residence w.e.f. 1995 because he was taking treatment outside his residence and only in the year 2000, he could see the order of dismissal when he returned to his residence at Jammu and thereafter, he approached the Commandant, 136 Bn BSF C/o 56 APO by submitting two representations dated 5.2.2000 and 11.7.2000 followed by Counsel Notice dated 19.10.2002. Hence, interest of justice would be met by directing the Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, Frontier Headquarter, Gujarat to forward the counsel notice dated 19.10.2002 to the Inspector General of Border Security Force, New Delhi within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Hence, interest of justice would be met by directing the Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, Frontier Headquarter, Gujarat to forward the counsel notice dated 19.10.2002 to the Inspector General of Border Security Force, New Delhi within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to enclose whatever material available with him to support his contention with the Counsel Notice wherein the dismissal order is questioned. 6. Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, Frontier Headquarter, Gujarat is also directed to send the documents to Inspector General of Border Security Force, New Delhi within a period of two weeks for consideration. While considering the same, Inspector General of Border Security Force, New Delhi shall consider the Counsel Notice as appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits within three months. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.