High Court upholds BSF man’s dismissal

Srinagar, Sep 26: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has upheld the dismissal of a BSF personnel from service, underscoring that members of uniformed forces are expected to observe a higher duty of care regarding abstention from duty.

In response to paramilitary soldier Kishan Tukaram Gavade’s plea against his dismissal, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that the BSF authorities could not be expected to wait for an “indefinite time” for the personnel to return to service without any communication from him.

Gavade, from Maharashtra, was dismissed from service on December 12, 2002, while posted in Akhnoor.

“This Court finds that there is no denial by the petitioner (Gavade) of the fact that he was required to join duty after a casual leave of seven days starting from June 8, 2002. However, he did not report back, and therefore, on this basis, he was dismissed from service,” the bench stated.

The petitioner has sought to justify his absence from duty based on a medical certificate dated May 10, 2004, issued by the Medical Superintendent of CI-1 Rural Hospital, Rui, Tehsil Baramati, District Pune. “However, the mere production of a medical certificate at the end of two years does not justify the absence without any communication or correspondence with the force,” the court noted.

The court emphasized that members of uniformed forces, particularly given the nature of their duties, are expected to observe a higher duty of care regarding abstention from duty.

“As such, in light of these circumstances, the extended period of overstay by the petitioner cannot be justified by merely citing a medical condition at the end of two years,” the court stated.

The court held that the BSF authorities could not be expected to wait indefinitely for the petitioner and found no error or infirmity in the order dated December 12, 2002.

The court concluded that the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service did not suffer from any legal infirmity and had been passed by the authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BSF Act and the rules framed therein.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the order dated December 12, 2002, dismissing the BSF man from service as “bereft of any merit.”