SUNIL KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL)

UKHC010017122018

2026:UHC:7856

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Service Single No. 2415 of 2018
01 September, 2026
Sunil Kumar

--Petitioner

Versus
Union Of India Through Ministry Of Home Affairs
(sashastra Seema Bal) & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of
India/respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.


By means of present writ petition, petitioner
has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order dated 01.12.2016 passed
by respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner was
dismissed from service with immediate effect. A further
challenge has been laid to the order dated 19.06.2018
passed by respondent no.2 whereby the appeal preferred
by the petitioner against the order dated 01.12.2016,
was dismissed.
2. Facts in nutshell are that petitioner was
working as Constable in the Office of
respondent/Sashastra Seema Bal. The petitioner sought
earned leave for 30 days’ w.e.f. 04.01.2016 to
02.02.2016. During the period of leave, an FIR was
lodged against the petitioner and his family members, in
respect of which, C482 application No.30923 of 2017
was filed before the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in which 30 days’ time was granted to the
petitioner to surrender pursuant to order dated
1

UKHC010017122018

2026:UHC:7856
19.09.2017. The petitioner accordingly surrendered
before the court concerned and applied for bail which
was granted to him on 12.10.2017.
3. During the aforesaid period, since the
petitioner was overstaying after expiry of sanctioned leave
w.e.f. 09.08.2016 without permission of Competent
Authority, proceedings were initiated against him by the
respondent authority. It is the case of respondents that
on 22.08.2016, communication was issued at the home
address of petitioner to resume duties but he failed to do
so. Thereafter, by order dated 10.09.2016, a Court of
Inquiry (COI) was ordered after 30 days’ of his absence as
per the provisions contained under Section 74(1) of the
Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (for short “the Act of
2007”). On receipt of COI report, the Commandant of the
Batalion, having been satisfied with the opinion of COI,
justified that the absence of petitioner was without leave
and further Government Kit Items and Identity Card was
also in his possession. Apprehension role was thereafter
issued to the concerned police authority to apprehend
the petitioner on 28.09.2016 and 06.10.2016. The
petitioner neither surrendered before the police authority
or the unit nor could he be apprehended by the
concerned police, and thus, he was declared ‘Deserter’ by
order dated 14.10.2016 as per the provisions contained
under Section 74(2) of the Act, 2007. Subsequently, a
show cause notice dated 17.10.2016 was served upon the
petitioner for resumption of duties within fifteen days,
but he did not do so. Second show cause notice was
published on 10.11.2016 in daily local newspaper i.e.
Dainik Jagran, Gorakhpur Edition directing the
petitioner to resume duties within fifteen days, but again
2

UKHC010017122018

2026:UHC:7856
the petitioner did not join the duties. The Competent
Authority, accordingly, while exercising power under Rule
21 r/w Rule 18 of SSB Rules, 2009 (for short “the Rules,
2009”), dismissed the petitioner from immediate effect
and also struck him off from the strength of the unit
w.e.f. 01.12.2016.
4. Feeling disgruntled, petitioner preferred an
appeal under the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules,
2009 which was decided by respondent no.2-Deputy
Inspector General/Appellate Authority, Sector Head
Quarters, SSB, Pilibhit vide order dated 19.06.2018.
5. Challenging both the orders, petitioner has
knocked the door of this Court.
6. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondents wherein it is stated that petitioner had
proceeded on 30 days’ earned leave from 04.01.2016 to
02.02.2016 but the petitioner neither reported back on
due date and time nor did send any intimation about his
th
overstaying leave. The petitioner reported at 57
Batalion Headquarters on 19.07.2016 i.e. after
overstaying himself for 168 days. It is also stated that
the proceedings under the provisions of Act of 2007 were
initiated against the petitioner; two notices were sent to
him at his place of address; Court of Inquiry was
conducted after 30 days’ of his absence; finally as per
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), after absence/OSL
(Over Staying Leave) of 90 days, the petitioner was
dismissed from the strength of the unit w.e.f.
01.12.2016. The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal
after a period of more than one year which is beyond the
prescribed 90 days time limit. Even then, the appellate
authority considered the case of petitioner and decided
3

UKHC010017122018

2026:UHC:7856
the appeal on merits. It is accordingly stated that the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit to
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents
wherein the averments made in the writ petition have
been reiterated.
8. I have learned counsel for the parties at length
and carefully perused the entire record of the case.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was granted leave for 30
days w.e.f. 04.01.2016 to 02.02.2016 and the petitioner
had to report to the unit after expiry of leave, but due to
an FIR lodged against the petitioner and his family
members, petitioner had to approach the Allahabad High
Court and ultimately, the bail was granted to him by the
trial court after which the petitioner reported for his
duty. It is further contended that there is no deliberate
delay on the part of petitioner in joining the duties. It is
next argued that the appellate authority has decided the
appeal of petitioner in a cursory and mechanical manner
without following the due process of law.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Union of India supported the case of
respondents and argued that the petitioner actually
overstayed the period of his leave. There is sufficient
compliance of provisions of law on the part of
respondents. Petitioner was issued two show cause
notices, wherefor, publication in daily newspaper was
also made, but petitioner did not choose to respond to
any of the proceedings initiated by the respondents.
11. Having considered the submissions put forth
by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that
4

UKHC010017122018

2026:UHC:7856
the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Union of India hold water. In this matter,
petitioner was granted 30 days’ leave during the period
04.01.2016 to 02.02.2016. Since the petitioner did not
join the duties within time, communicated dated
01.09.2016 was sent to him but the petitioner failed to
resume his duties. A Court of Inquiry was ordered in the
matter by order dated 10.09.2016 as per the provisions
of Act of 2007. On being satisfied with the report of
Court of Inquiry, respondent no.3 issued apprehension
role to the concerned police authority for apprehending
the petitioner. The petitioner even then neither
surrendered before the police authority or the unit nor
could be apprehended by the concerned police and
accordingly, he was declared Deserter by order dated
14.10.2016. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to
him on 17.10.2016 and thereafter on 10.11.2016 in
daily newspaper. Even then, the petitioner did not
resume his duties. The petitioner actually reported
himself for joining the duties on 19.07.2016 at 19:10
hours after overstaying himself for 168 days. Thereafter,
the petitioner again went on seven days casual leave
from 02.08.2016 to 09.08.2016 and failed to resume his
duties on due date and time and overstayed himself for
113 days without permission of the competent authority.
The reasons for overstaying leave was given by the
petitioner was that an FIR was lodged against him and
his family. On the face of it, it appeared a false and
incorrect reason. Petitioner was on sanction leave from
04.01.2016 to 02.02.2016. But FIR (annexure-1 to the
writ petition) was lodged on 30.03.2016. Thus, there was
no occasion for him overstaying the leave. He remained
5

UKHC010017122018

2026:UHC:7856
absent for 168 days. Secondly, he again overstayed leave
after 09.08.2016 for 113 days without any permission of
the competent authority. Thus, reason offered by
petitioner was nothing but a lame excuse and an eye-
wash.
12. Against the order of dismissal, petitioner
could prefer the appeal within a time period of 90 days.
However, the same was actually preferred after lapse of
nine months limitation period. Even then, the appellate
authority by way of a speaking order dated 19.06.2018,
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of dismissal
of service.
13. In my opinion, petitioner who was a Member
of Disciplined Force was given sufficient opportunity to
join the duties which he failed to do so. The order of
dismissing the petitioner from service does not suffer
from the vice of infirmity or illegality. The appellate
authority too was quite sympathetic while deciding the
appeal of petitioner.
14. In such view of the matter, no interference is
warranted. The petition fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.09.2026
AK


AVNE
ET
KAUR
Digitally signed by AVNEET KAUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=a82175252dc1a0f53f0
e245a1c11df9aa490cfd140383 8bf52f9acab4cc3a5b9,
postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=5BEC18DADE54
688668187E4D722C2EDBFDAF
35AB2F676A551481BE62508F DDEE, cn=AVNEET KAUR
Date: 2026.09.02 18:18:45
+05'30'
6