1 12 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 110/2010. Ex-Barber Krishan Kumar Vs. Director General, B.S.F. & Ors. ... Date of Order :: 19th March 2010. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. C.S. Panwar, for the appellant. ... BY THE COURT: This intra-court is directed against the order dated 06.01.2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-appellant after finding no case on merits and the petition having been filed with suppression of material facts while seeking to invoke sympathy. By way of the writ petition (CWP No.11849/2009), the petitioner attempted to challenge the order dated 10.10.2004 (Annex.P/1) whereby the Commandant, 116 Bn BSF, after finding that the petitioner-appellant overstayed on leave ever since 17.04.2004 and failed to respond even to the notices issued on 15/20.08.2004 and on 31.08.2004, proceeded to order him to be struck off the strength and the period of unauthorised absence to be treated as dies non for all purposes. The petitioner-appellant submitted in the writ petition that he was appointed as Barber in 116 Bn BSF on 20.02.2002; and that after having been transferred to the location in Jammu Sector, he was subjected to exploitation and forced-labour on other jobs. The 2 appellant suggested that he came on leave but overstayed and out of frustration, sent an inland letter expressing difficulties. It was further averred that he left by train from Jodhpur to join his Unit on 28.07.2004 but neither reached Jammu nor reached home. However, according to the petitioner-appellant, the family was informed about his death and the persons of family were taken to Suratgarh and then to Surat to identify the body but such suggestions turned out to be incorrect. The appellant stated the grievance that the respondents proceeded ex parte against him and passed the order of dismissal against the principles of natural justice. It was also suggested that the appellant remained untraceable for over two years and thereafter his brother appealed against his dismissal in the month of February 2009; and that the appellant himself requested for reinstatement on 26.06.2009 and then, served a notice on 28.07.2009 of which, a reply was received on 03.11.2009. The learned Single Judge found the writ petition baseless with the observations that the appellant was not willing to work in the Unit and such a fact was apparent from his representation belatedly made; and the appellant was well aware of his removal by the order dated 10.10.2004. The learned Single Judge found the story as suggested, that the appellant was not found by his family members, to be a concocted one while noticing inconsistencies. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that the dismissal order dated 10.10.2004 has been passed without following the statutory provisions of the BSF Act, 1968, in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 22 of the BSF Rules, 1969, 3 and in total violation of the principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner-appellant appealed for reinstatement but to no avail. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having examined the record, we are unable to find even a remote reason to consider interference in this matter. From the averments as taken by the appellant and the material as placed on record, this much is clear that the appellant was appointed on a civil post of Barber in 116 Bn BSF on 20.02.2002; and since after 17.04.2004, never joined at his Unit. Certain suggestions have been made that the BSF representatives accompanied by civil police informed the father of the appellant about suicide having been committed by the appellant and the family persons having been taken to identify the dead body at Suratgarh and Surat that turned out to be false an information. However, we are unable to find any co-relation of such submissions with the grievance sought to be made in the writ petition and the appeal. The fact of the matter had been that the petitioner-appellant never joined at the Unit after 17.04.2004 and ultimately, the respondents proceeded to pass the order of dismissal on 10.10.2004. Certain suggestions have further been made that the appellant was traced in the month of January 2008 while wandering in villages and could not regain his sound mental state for a long while; that the brother of the appellant allegedly attempted to espouse his cause; and that certain representations were made by the appellant. The 4 incomplete and uncertain stories as suggested on behalf of the appellant are rather difficult to be appreciated and in any case, on the basis of such uncertain suggestions about his having gone untraceable, we find no reason that an order passed by the authorities as back as on 10.10.2004 could have been taken up for interference by the writ Court in the petition filed only in the year 2009. Though during the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant also made certain suggestions about pendency of the appeal filed by the appellant with the respondents but has not been able to show the particulars of any such appeal. After having examined the averments as taken on behalf of the petitioner-appellant and the material as placed on record, we are constrained to observe that the representation as made by the petitioner-appellant on 26.06.2009 and the notice as sent on his behalf on 06.10.2009 had only been a late attempt to resurrect a stale claim on the basis of vague, cursory, uncertain, and incomplete suggestions. There is nothing on record to even remotely find any submission on the whereabouts of the petitioner for a long period of about five years. The respondents, in all fairness, have yet responded to the belated notice served on behalf of the appellant by a specific and to-the-point reply dated 03.11.2009 and have, inter alia, pointed out that even the show cause notices issued to the appellant were received back undelivered with the remarks that the addressee was not found at his house and the persons in the house would only say that he had gone on duty but would not divulge the place. 5 The suggestions about his loss of sound mental state are apparently of concoction and pretension. Even in the representation as made on behalf of the appellant on 26.06.2009 (Annex.P/2) it has not been stated that he was under any mental disability for a long period of five years; and rather, the suggestions had been that he was not interested in joining 116 Bn and that he be engaged in any other Unit ! The petitioner-appellant could not have forced the respondents to engage him in any other unit of his choice and that too by way of a representation made after five years of absence. We find no reason whatsoever to consider interference in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (JAGDISH BHALLA),CJ. Mohan/ 6