Dismissal for prolonged unauthorised absence from a disciplined force is justified absent genuine medical justification.

The petitioner, an ex-Constable of the Border Security Force, entered service on 20 July 2011.

He proceeded on casual leave to visit Samba, Jammu & Kashmir, and thereafter remained absent from duty from 4 August 2022.

He claimed that he suffered from a corn-related ailment requiring treatment, that his mother was seriously ill, and that he shifted from Samba to Amritsar for medical and family reasons.

The petitioner did not inform the BSF of his change of address or maintain communication with the department.

The respondents continued sending notices to his recorded address at Samba.

Following show-cause notices and proceedings, the Commandant passed an order dated 3 March 2026 dismissing him from service, with dismissal stated to have taken effect from 2 March 2023.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal on the grounds that the notices were not served at his Amritsar address, thereby denying him a fair opportunity of hearing.

Alternatively, relying on his more than 12 years of allegedly unblemished service, he sought conversion of dismissal into discharge on the ground of disproportionality.

The respondents defended the dismissal on the basis of unauthorized absence, indiscipline, and failure to inform the department of his address and medical circumstances.

Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing because the show-cause notices and proceedings were sent to his recorded address at Samba rather than to Amritsar.

Whether the petitioner’s unauthorized absence, medical claims, and family circumstances justified interference with the order of dismissal.

Whether dismissal from service was disproportionate and ought to have been substituted with discharge.

Members of the Central Armed Police Forces are subject to a heightened obligation of discipline because the force performs border-security and national-defence functions.

An employee must inform the employer of a change in residential address and cannot rely on non-receipt of notices at an address that the employee failed to update.

The Court also considered the principles of procedural fairness, judicial review in extraordinary jurisdiction, and proportionality of disciplinary punishment.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court held that the petitioner himself created the circumstances underlying his claim of non-service by failing to notify the BSF of his change of address.

The respondents were therefore justified in communicating with him at the address available in their records, and the petitioner could not take advantage of his own breach of the service condition to allege denial of hearing.

The Court also found that the medical certificate issued by a BAMS doctor contained no adequate details regarding the ailment, treatment, affected body part, or alleged surgery, and did not establish a genuine justification for the prolonged absence.

Further, the petitioner ought to have informed the department and sought appropriate medical leave rather than remaining uncommunicative.

Given the importance of discipline in the BSF and the petitioner’s casual conduct, the Court found no basis to interfere with the disciplinary decision or to treat dismissal as disproportionate.

It held that there was no denial of a fair hearing, that the petitioner’s unauthorized absence was not satisfactorily justified, and that dismissal was not liable to be substituted with discharge.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.