Dismissal is proportionate where a disciplined-force member habitually overstays leave and produces forged medical certificates.

The petitioner was enrolled as a BSF Constable (General Duty) on 25 March 2012 and posted to the 83rd Battalion on 5 January 2014.

He was sanctioned 60 days’ earned leave from 23 February 2018 to 23 April 2018 but failed to resume duty thereafter.

Repeated communications directing him to report for duty were sent on 2, 12 and 22 May 2018, but he did not respond.

A court of inquiry was conducted under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, followed by departmental proceedings under Rule 22(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969.

In response to the show-cause notice proposing dismissal, the petitioner submitted medical certificates allegedly issued by MGM Hospital, Warangal. The hospital denied issuing the certificates and stated that the concerned doctor had never worked there.

The petitioner did not satisfactorily explain the alleged fabrication and subsequently cited domestic difficulties and sought time to resign.

The Commandant dismissed him from service on 1 May 2019 for unauthorised absence of 373 days, exercising powers under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act read with Rules 177 and 22(2) of the BSF Rules.

His appeal was dismissed on 3 December 2019, and his subsequent representation was rejected as having already been considered by the competent authority.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal and sought substitution of the punishment on grounds of compelling personal circumstances, bona fide mistake and disproportionality.

Whether the petitioner’s dismissal from the BSF for overstaying leave by 373 days and producing allegedly forged medical certificates warranted interference under the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate having regard to the petitioner’s personal circumstances, marital status and responsibility towards his daughter.

Whether the petitioner’s past service record justified upholding the dismissal.

The Court applied Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, which authorises dismissal from service by the competent authority; Sections 61 and 62 of the Act concerning apprehension and inquiry into absence or overstaying; and Rule 22(2) read with Rule 177 of the BSF Rules, 1969, governing departmental proceedings and dismissal.

The Court also applied the principle that judicial review of disciplinary punishment is limited, particularly in relation to members of a disciplined force, and that interference is warranted only where the punishment is unlawful, arbitrary, perverse or grossly disproportionate.

Past conduct and repeated prior misconduct may be considered in assessing the appropriateness of punishment.

The Court found that the petitioner had remained absent for 373 days after expiry of his sanctioned leave and had failed to respond to repeated directions to resume duty.

His explanation was further weakened because the medical certificates relied upon by him were disowned by MGM Hospital, and he did not provide a satisfactory clarification when confronted with their alleged falsity.

The Court considered his prior record, which showed repeated instances of overstaying leave and absence without leave, including absences of 62, 21 and 161 days, along with another disciplinary punishment.

In view of this habitual misconduct, the Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on personal hardship or alleged bona fide mistake did not justify interference.

Given the petitioner’s membership of a disciplined force, the punishment of dismissal was held commensurate with the gravity and persistence of the misconduct.

It held that the dismissal order dated 1 May 2019 was justified, that the petitioner’s past conduct supported the punishment, and that dismissal was not disproportionate.

Finding no ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of all pending applications.