Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the findings of the General Security Force Court (GSFC) and the modified punishment imposed by the Director General (DG), BSF. The Court held that the petitioner’s conduct of proceeding on leave despite denial constituted misconduct and that the sentence imposed—initially dismissal, later commuted to forfeiture of five years of service for promotion purposes and a severe reprimand—was not shockingly disproportionate. The Court ruled:
“The petitioner, being told that leave cannot be sanctioned, has acted in a manner not befitting a member of the Armed Disciplined Force. … The punishment imposed on him cannot be said to be disproportionate.”
Facts:
- The petitioner was appointed as SI (Stenographer) in the BSF in 1999 and was serving at the Sector Headquarters, Jaisalmer since July 2004.
- On 02.08.2005, he applied for three days Earned Leave from 16.08.2005, with prefix/suffix of holidays for celebrating Raksha Bandhan.
- Despite repeated follow-ups, he did not receive formal sanction. The DIG refused leave, citing an impending visit by the Additional Director General (W), BSF.
- On 12.08.2005, the petitioner informed that he would proceed on leave due to unavoidable personal reasons, and left the next day without approval.
- He remained absent from 13.08.2005 to 18.09.2005, despite repeated official warnings and communications.
- He was tried by the GSFC under Section 19(a) of the BSF Act for unauthorised absence and was dismissed from service.
- Upon filing a statutory petition under Section 117 of the BSF Act, the DG, BSF, commuted the sentence and reinstated him with modified punishment.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner’s absence amounted to misconduct justifying disciplinary action.
- Whether the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
- Whether the denial of leave was arbitrary or in violation of service rules.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- He had applied for leave well in advance and was compelled to leave due to personal and familial obligations.
- Repeated requests were made, and the leave application was supported by Inspector Somasundaram, who was willing to handle his duties.
- The denial of leave was due to the egoistic approach of officers rather than administrative necessity.
- There was no exigency of service; the sector was peaceful, and manpower was sufficient.
- He kept the authorities informed and sought extensions; hence, the absence was not wilful.
- The punishment was excessive given the circumstances.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The petitioner was aware that leave was denied due to the official visit of the Additional DG.
- Inspector Somasundaram was medically unfit to take over duties.
- The absence was willful and continued despite multiple warnings.
- The punishment was awarded strictly under the law and following principles of natural justice.
Analysis of the Law:
- Rule 7 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, was cited: “Leave cannot be claimed as of right… may be refused or revoked when exigencies of public service so require.”
- The petitioner was a member of a disciplined force where leave decisions are tied to operational requirements.
- His unilateral decision to proceed on leave despite formal denial and clear communication from authorities was found to be in defiance of service norms.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, where it was held:
“The sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh… if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction.”
The Court held that while judicial review can examine the proportionality of punishment, it should not intervene unless the punishment is “shockingly disproportionate.”
Court’s Reasoning:
- The petitioner had unequivocal knowledge that leave was denied.
- He informed of his departure rather than seeking permission, showing defiance.
- Evidence showed he was absent without sanctioned leave and ignored repeated directives to report back.
- Inspector Somasundaram’s ability to take over duties was disputed by the respondents citing medical grounds.
- The GSFC trial followed due process; the petitioner cross-examined witnesses and submitted a written defence.
- The DG, BSF, had already taken a lenient view by modifying the dismissal to a lesser penalty.
Conclusion:
- The petition lacked merit as the petitioner had acted contrary to the standards expected of a disciplined force.
- The Court found no procedural impropriety or disproportionate punishment warranting interference under Article 226.
- The writ petition was dismissed.
Implications:
- Reinforces that members of Armed Forces must abide by strict service discipline, especially in matters such as leave.
- Emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters of the armed forces.
- Highlights the discretion of disciplinary authorities to impose proportionate punishment in line with administrative exigencies.