Dismissal is justified when a disciplined-force member repeatedly overstays leave and ignores resumption notices.

The petitioner, a Constable in the Sashastra Seema Bal, was sanctioned 30 days’ earned leave from 4 January 2016 to 2 February 2016.

He did not resume duty on expiry of leave and was alleged to have overstayed without permission.

The respondents initiated proceedings under Section 74 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, including a Court of Inquiry after more than 30 days of absence.

An apprehension role was issued to the police, but the petitioner neither surrendered nor resumed duty. He was consequently declared a deserter on 14 October 2016.

The petitioner was served a show-cause notice dated 17 October 2016 and a further notice published in Dainik Jagran on 10 November 2016, directing him to resume duty within fifteen days.

He failed to do so. The competent authority dismissed him from service with immediate effect under Rules 21 and 18 of the SSB Rules, 2009, and struck him off the unit’s strength with effect from 1 December 2016.

His statutory appeal under Rule 29 was dismissed by the appellate authority on 19 June 2018.

The petitioner challenged both orders, asserting that an FIR against him and his family prevented his timely return and that the appellate decision was mechanical.

The Court applied Section 74(1) and (2) of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, under which proceedings may be initiated against a member absent without leave, including through a Court of Inquiry and declaration as a deserter.

It further applied Rules 18 and 21 of the SSB Rules, 2009, which authorised the competent authority to dismiss the petitioner in the circumstances, and Rule 29, which provided the statutory appellate remedy subject to the prescribed limitation period of 90 days.

The Court also applied the disciplinary principle that members of a disciplined force must resume duty on expiry of sanctioned leave and cannot remain absent without permission, particularly after being given repeated opportunities to report for duty.

The Court found that the petitioner had remained absent after expiry of his sanctioned leave and had failed to respond to repeated directions to resume duty.

The respondents conducted a Court of Inquiry, issued an apprehension role, declared him a deserter, and served two show-cause notices, including publication in a local newspaper.

These steps demonstrated substantial compliance with Section 74 of the 2007 Act and provided the petitioner adequate opportunity to return to service.

The Court rejected the explanation based on the FIR, observing that the FIR was lodged on 30 March 2016, whereas the sanctioned leave had expired on 2 February 2016; it also noted the petitioner’s subsequent period of unauthorised absence after 9 August 2016.

Given the petitioner’s prolonged absence and his status as a member of a disciplined force, the dismissal was held neither arbitrary nor illegal.

The appellate authority’s decision was treated as a speaking order affirming the dismissal, notwithstanding the delay in filing the appeal.

It further held that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to resume duty and that the appellate order did not warrant interference.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending application was disposed of accordingly.