Meghalaya: HC dismisses writ petition filed by ex-BSF constable Ashwin Patti

A single judge bench of the Meghalaya High Court comprising of Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice, delivered a significant judgment in the matter of Ashwin Patti vs. Union of India. While deciding the Writ Petition filed in the matter, he held that employees of the disciplined forces are not eligible for any relief if they exceed their leave period without providing adequate justification.

Ashwin Patti who was an ex-constable of the Border Security Force (BSF), and was enrolled on December 3, 1997 filed the writ petition after he was dismissed from service. After completing basic training, Patti was posted to the 65th Battalion BSF on December 18, 1998. The petitioner applied for leave on May 24, 2014, which was sanctioned for 50 days. However, he did not avail himself of the sanctioned leave and subsequently applied for another 15 days of earned leave due to his sister's illness. This leave was also granted, but he failed to report back to duty as scheduled. Despite multiple notices and opportunities given to him, the petitioner did not return to duty, resulting in his dismissal from service by the Summary Security Force Court.

Claiming that all evidence was recorded in English, which he did not understand and which violates Rule 134 of the BSF Rules, 1969, the petitioner argued that there were procedural irregularities in the dismissal process. Additionally, he contended that there was no proper inquiry conducted and that he was not given a fair chance to defend.

On the other hand, the respondents contented that the petitioner had absented himself from duty for 305 days without providing sufficient reasons. They contended that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to report back to work, but he failed to do so. The respondents emphasized the disciplinary nature of the BSF and cited previous punishments the petitioner had received for similar offenses.

The court observed that the petitioner had overstayed his sanctioned leave period without sufficient reasons and failed to report back to duty despite repeated notices. It noted that the BSF is a disciplined force and emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline within such organizations. 

The court also relied on the case of Union of India vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad, wherein the Supreme Court held that a Constable overstaying his leave period and thereafter, reporting for work is not entitled to any relief.

The court further observed that the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in service as his conduct was highly unacceptable and he had not maintained discipline in his service. 

It also noted that the petitioner, being a Constable, more particularly, a member of disciplined force, was bound to obey the order and command of his superior officers. 

The court found that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities to defend himself during the inquiry process but had failed to do so effectively. 

The court underlines that there were no procedural irregularities in the dismissal process and upheld the punishment imposed by the Summary Security Force Court. It found the dismissal from service justified given the petitioner's conduct and upheld the validity of the dismissal order.