IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3084 of 2001 MINTU KUMAR SINGH Son of late Ram Kripal Singh, resident of village Hariharpur, P.O. Hariharpur P.S. Jamo Bazar, District Siwan... Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of HomeAffairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Border Security Force, Government of India,C.G.O. Complex Block No. 10, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3 3. The Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, Border Headquarter Sector, Ferozpur, Punjab. 4. The commandant Headquarters, 63, BN Border Security Force, Pokaran, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan........ Respondents. --------------- Advocate for the petitioner:- Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh,Sr.Advocate & Mr. Pramod Kumar Advocate for the Union of India:- Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate ----------- 6 12-01-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. After a show cause notice dated 15-4-1999 in which it was mentioned by the Commandant of 63rd Battalion, Border Security Force that petitioner’s trial by a Security Force Court is inexpedient and impractical, petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 28-5-99. That order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authority for passing a fresh order after considering petitioner’s reply if he made available his reply to the show cause notice dated 15-4-99 within a fixed time. Pursuant to such order of remand by this court dated 9-5-2000, the impugned order dated 17-8-2000 contained in annexure-17 again imposes the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner after considering cause shown by him. - 2 - Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner took this court through the order contained in annexure-17 as well as the show cause notice contained in annexure-14 to point out and submit that the earlier service history and punishments as well as period of staying away from duty without authorized leave were not included in the show cause notice whereas they have been used in the impugned order and this has prevented the petitioner from giving effective reply in respect of such materials which have been used beyond the allegations in the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority is ordinarily required to communicate all the charges to the concerned employee against whom disciplinary proceeding is held but in the instant case the show cause notice mentions that the trial of the petitioner by the Security Force Court is inexpedient and not practical and that finding was not interfered by this court which remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority only for considering the show cause of the petitioner and passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Although the impugned order refers the back-ground materials of the earlier periods when the petitioner was absent without authorized leave and also some punishments awarded to him for other reasons, it has considered the show cause of the petitioner for the period of absence from 7th August, 1998 and has reiterated the order of dismissal. On a careful reading of the averments in the writ petition this Court finds that the facts of earlier absence of petitioner from duty - 3 - Naresh from 12-7-97 to 5-7-1998 mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3of the impugned order are not denied but only explained by allegation that there was threat to his life in the 63rd. Battalion and therefore he did not join No doubt better course was possible for the disciplinary authority but natural justice depends upon the facts of the case and in the facts of the present case this court finds that there was no prejudice to the petitioner and it is not a fit case to interfere with the dismissal of the petitioner from service. The writ petition is , therefore, dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)