Habitual unauthorized absence from a disciplined force constitutes misconduct warranting dismissal regardless of claims of non-wilful intent.

The petitioner, a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), overstayed his leave period from October 29, 2022.

Despite three warning letters sent to his home address and a "one-man Court of Inquiry" conducted under Section 62 of the BSF Act, 1968, the petitioner failed to report for duty.

A show-cause notice proposing dismissal was served to him via a representative on February 2, 2023. Although the petitioner gave a written commitment to return on February 4, 2023, he failed to do so.

Consequently, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on February 4, 2023, a decision later affirmed by the appellate authority.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal, alleging lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice (non-supply of documents), and lack of a finding that the absence was "wilful".

1. Whether the summary dismissal under Rule 22(2) of the BSF Rules was legally sustainable and whether the absence amounted to misconduct.

2. Whether the disciplinary authority was required to record a specific finding that the unauthorized absence was "wilful" as per the ratio in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India.

Rule 22(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, which empowers the authority to dismiss or remove a person from service on account of misconduct.

Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, regarding Courts of Inquiry for absence without leave.

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178, which holds that in departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence, the authority must prove the absence was wilful to constitute misconduct.

The court found that the petitioner was a habitual offender with a history of five prior instances of regularization for overstaying leave and multiple punishments of rigorous imprisonment and fines for similar conduct.

The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Krushnakant B. Parmar, noting that while the officer in that case was prevented from performing duty, the petitioner herein was never restrained and deliberately chose not to report despite repeated opportunities.

The court observed that BSF is a "disciplined Force" where unauthorized absence disrupts security duties like preventing trans-border crime.

The court found no evidence of "hot haste" or "malice," noting that the authority had waited for the petitioner’s promised return date before passing the order.

The allegation of non-supply of documents was dismissed as the petitioner never requested them during the proceedings.

The Court answered the issues by finding that the authority acted within its jurisdiction and followed the prescribed rules. The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of dismissal was upheld.