IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22739 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.3.2011. Chaman Lal --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner is aggrieved of his dismissal vide order dated 12.1.2001 (Annexure P-8) and the order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-11), whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected by a speaking order. Apart from challenging the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has also impugned charge sheet dated 21.9.1998 (Annexure P-1) and the show cause notice dated 23.12.2000 (Annexure P-7). In the year 1995 petitioner was posted as Inspector (G) in JAD (G) Team, Amritsar under the command of one Sh. Arvinder Singh, Ex. Deputy Commandant, B.S.F. Said Arvinder Singh was arrested and taken in custody for alleged transborder smuggling. Petitioner was called to depose as a witness against Sh.Arvinder Singh regarding alleged seizure of 52 Kgs of heroine at Sherpur. It is stated that petitioner was again summoned as a witness to depose before the Special Court, N.D.P.S, Bikaner. However, the petitioner is said to have shown his ignorance about the incident. In the year 1998 petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 21.9.1998 alleging that the petitioner was involved in transborder smuggling along with Sh. Arvinder Singh, the then J.A.D(G), B.O.P, Sherpur, Amritsar, 22nd Battalion in the month of May, 1996. Copy CWP No. 22739 of 2010 -2- of the charge sheet has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Petitioner was heard by the D.I.G under Rule 45 of B.S.F Rules and after such hearing an inquiry was ordered against the petitioner. Sh.R.K. Chaudhary was detailed for Record of Evidence (ROE). It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer recorded as many as 8 witnesses, however, nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner. D.I.G vide his order dated 20.10.1998 ordered record of additional ROE. Two more witnesses were examined. It is alleged that since no evidence was found against the petitioner, the second additional ROE was ordered by the authorities and at the same time Sh.R.K. Chaudhary was replaced by Sh.K.J.S. Cheema to prepare second additional ROE. Even then no further evidence was found against the petitioner. A third additional ROE was ordered vide order dated 29.3.1999. During third ROE one Clerk of Sector Headquarter was produced as a witness who produced statement (Annexure-1) containing statement of one Nagesh Kumar. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 23.12.2000 under Rule 22 of the B.S.F. Rules, 1969 containing the allegations against the petitioner. It was recorded in the show cause notice that trial of the petitioner by the security force code is inexpedient and his further retention in service is undesirable because of his involvement in the transborder smuggling of contraband on 20.5.1996 in the company of Sh.Arvinder Singh, the then J.A.D (G), B.S.F., Amritsar. It was proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service in terms of Section 11 of the B.S.F Act read with Rule 22 of B.S.F Rules. After the reply of the petitioner, D.I.G on behalf of I.G., B.S.F., Punjab Frontier passed the order of dismissal dated 12.1.2001 dismissing the petitioner from service without pension under Rule 22 of the B.S.F Rules. Aggrieved of the order of dismissal petitioner CWP No. 22739 of 2010 -3- preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 4.4.2001. This appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide letter dated 19.1.2002. Aggrieved of the dismissal of his appeal, petitioner filed CWP no. 8395 of 2005 before this Court. This writ petition was allowed in limited terms setting aside the order of Appellate Authority with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the same after passing a speaking and reasoned order. A further direction was issued to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing and the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-11) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The main thrust of the petitioner's case is that record of evidence was recorded four times but no evidence was available except the statement of a Clerk who produced the statement of Sh. Nagesh Kumar witness. His further contention is that the procedure prescribed under Rules 45 and 51-A has not been followed and no opportunity of hearing the charge was afforded to the petitioner by the competent authority. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. From the show cause notice and order of dismissal, it appears that the petitioner has not been dismissed on the basis of a departmental inquiry. His dismissal has been ordered under Rule 22 of the B.S.F Rules, 1969 by dispensing with the trial, which is found to be inexpedient by the competent authority. From the perusal of Rule 22, it is evident that a person subject to the act other than an officer can be terminated or removed from service for misconduct, where the competent authority is satisfied on CWP No. 22739 of 2010 -4- considering the reports of misconduct of the persons concerned that the trial of such a person is inexpedient or impracticable. The only requirement is service of the show cause notice. In the present case the dismissal of the petitioner is not on the basis of a trial or the inquiry contemplated by Rules 45 and 51-A rather his termination is in exercise of the jurisdiction under Rule 22 of the B.S.F Rules. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner which has been replied to. The competent authority on being satisfied with the misconduct of the petitioner dismissed him from service. It has come on record that the petitioner was involved in transborder smuggling which inter alia includes dealing with narcotics with Pak nationals. The petitioner has not challenged the opinion or satisfaction of the competent authority regarding inexpediency of trial. Co-accused of the petitioner Sh.Arvinder Singh has already been convicted by the trial court. No legal infirmity has been pointed out. Where the administrative action is initiated in terms of Rule 22, the power of judicial review can only be exercised regarding the manner of exercise of power. The petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity in exercise of the powers by the competent authority. In view of the nature of allegations and the fact that the procedure prescribed under law has been duly adopted while passing the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 31.3.2011. lucky