IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5509 of 2010 RAMANJI JHA S/O SHRI DHANESHWAR JHA R/O VILL BELHWAR, P.S.RAJNAGAR, DISTT-MADHUBANI(BIHAR) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA (THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI) 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PERS-II) SSB FORCE HQ NEW DELHI 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, SECTOR HQ SSB LAKHIMPUR KHERI, DISTT- LAKHIMPUR KHERI(U.P.) 4. THE COMMANDANT, SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL (SSB) 4TH BN. SSB PALIAN KALAN, DISTT-LAKHIMPUR KHERI(UP) For the Petitioner : M/s B.K. Sinha, Subhash Kr. Mishra, Ranjan Kr. Sinha, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Rashid Izhar, Advocate. ----------- 03. 06.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India, who prayed for time to file counter affidavit in the matter but the nature of the order which this court is proposing to pass does not admit of any adjournment. Accordingly, the prayer to adjourn the matter is refused. 2. Petitioner who served 4th Battalion, SSB, Palian Kalam has filed this writ application questioning the legality/validity of the order dated 25.5.2009, Annexure-6, whereunder he has been removed from the post of constable after conducting inquiry proceeding against him. He is further aggrieved by the appellate order dated 13.11.2009 Annexure-8, whereunder the appeal preferred against the removal order Annexure-6 has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 29.9.2008 he was instructed by the commandant to inform the Nepal police about the cancellation of the coordination meeting fixed for 30.9.2008 and was permitted to use the official motorcycle for going to custom check-post/8 situate on no man’s land at Gauri Fanta. - 2 - Petitioner, however, without permission crossed the custom gate and went into the no man’s land on the motorcycle and while he was in the no man’s land, the motorcycle was snatched by the extremists. Later petitioner was asked to deposit the value of the motorcycle as also its repairing cost, which he promptly complied. Notwithstanding the said deposit petitioner was proceeded against in the departmental proceeding and under the impugned order was removed from service. The appeal preferred against the removal order also failed. 4. With reference to the averments made in the writ application learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment of removal for the charge of disobedience of going into no man’s land on the motorcycle appears to be severe in view of the fact that petitioner has already deposited the cost of the motorcycle including its repairing cost. From the original removal order and the appellate order it is evident that petitioner was instructed to use the motorcycle up to the gate of custom check-post and not beyond the check-post but violating such instruction petitioner went into the no man’s land, where he came across the miscreants who forcibly divested him of the motorcycle. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that petitioner violated the instruction of the superior authority not to go beyond the custom check-post gate. Petitioner having gone beyond the custom check-post gate and the motorcycle having been snatched from his custody, in compliance of the direction of his superior has paid back the amount of loss caused to the battalion by depositing the cost of the motorcycle. Once the - 3 - petitioner deposited the cost of the motorcycle, in my opinion, he made good the loss caused to the Battalion on account of his disobedience of the official order. In the circumstances, the authorities could have considered the request of the petitioner for granting him punishment other than removal/dismissal from service. 5. Let petitioner avail the remedy of revision against the punishment of removal and the appellate order before the I.G., SSB who should consider the same in accordance with law in the light of the fact that petitioner was a new entrant to the service and has already made good the loss caused on account of his overt act of crossing the custom check-post and going into the no man’s land. The revision filed by the petitioner should be considered by the I.G. SSB in accordance with law as per my observation above, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the revision filed by the petitioner. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)