Patna High Court
Kapil Muni SinghversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the retirement order was lawful and there was no basis for judicial interference.
Summary
Kapil Muni Singh, a member of the Border Security Force, challenged his retirement order dated 15 May 2024, which was issued under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act 1968 and Rule 26 of the BSF Rules 1969. He alleged that the show‑cause notice was a mere formality, that his reply was not considered, and that the retirement violated principles of natural justice. The Union of India contended that the notice complied with procedural requirements, that his reply was duly considered, and that repeated disciplinary failures justified retirement. The Patna High Court examined the show‑cause notice, the original punishment order, and the appellate order, noting the petitioner’s history of multiple punishments and the authority’s conclusion that improvement was unlikely. Finding no procedural defect or ground for interference in the service matter, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the retirement order.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued to the petitioner complied with the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the retirement of the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act 1968 and Rule 26 of the BSF Rules 1969 is legally valid in view of his prior punishments.
- Whether the High Court can intervene in disciplinary and service matters of the Border Security Force.
Legislation cited
- Border Security Force Act, 1968 — s. 11(2)
- Border Security Force Rules, 1969 — s. 177, 26
- Central Civil Services Rules, 2021 — s. 18
Subjects
- Border Security Force
- retirement
- show‑cause notice
- natural justice
- service law
- disciplinary action
- writ petition
- Civil Service Rules
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.198 of 2025
======================================================
Kapil Muni Singh S/o Awadh Bihari Singh, Resident of village- Kewalpatti,
P.S. - Bihiya, District- Bhojpur (Ara).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Director General of Police, B.S.F, Lodi
Enclave, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Inspector General (PSO), Frontier Head Quarter, B.S.F, South
Bengal, Plot No- 11, Action Area-IIE, New Town, Kolkata-700161.
3. The Commandant, 143 Battalion B.S.F, THQ Match Factory, Kanth Bagh,
Distt. - Baramulla (J and K)- 193103.
4. The Commandant, 143 Battalion B.S.F, Bhondsi, Battalion Head Quarter,
Gurugram, Hariyana.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Solicitor General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
8 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Union of India.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“For issuance of an appropriate
writ/s, order/s, direction/s to the respondent
for quashing order dated 15.05.2024
contained in Letter No-7502-22 issued by
respondent Commandant whereby and under
the petitioner services has been struck off
from the strength of the unit with effect from
15.05.2024 on the ground that he is
Patna High Court CWJC No.198 of 2025(8) dt.22-06-2026
2/4
undesirable in the force and in exercise of
the power provided under section 11(2) of
the B.S.F Act 1968 read with rule 177 of
B.S.F rules 1969 and under the provisions of
Rule 26 of B.S.F Rules 1969, the petitioner
has been retired from service with effect
from 15.05.2024 with admissible financial
benefits as admissible under Rule 18 of the
Central Civil Services Rules 2021.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
from Annexure-P/1, it transpires that a show-cause notice has
been issued with a prejudiced approach, as according to him, the
show-cause notice indicates that the decision had already been
taken and that the said notice has been issued merely as a
formality. Counsel further submits that the punishment order is
based upon an unsustainable show-cause notice. His reply to the
show-cause notice has not been considered at all, and the
decision to remove the petitioner from service is absolutely
illegal and fit to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the
other hand, submits that there is no defect in the show-cause
notice. Counsel further submits that whatever has been stated in
the show-cause notice is nothing but an additional opportunity
provided to the petitioner in spite of the fact that eight
punishments had already been awarded to him. Counsel further
Patna High Court CWJC No.198 of 2025(8) dt.22-06-2026
3/4
submits that the reply submitted by the petitioner has also been
considered by the competent authority. Sufficient opportunities
were granted to the petitioner to improve himself, but he failed
to improve his conduct. Counsel further submits that in a force
like the BSF, discipline is required to be maintained at all times,
and there is a complete lack of discipline on the part of the
petitioner. Counsel further submits that no interference is called
for in the present case.
5. Upon perusal of the show-cause notice, the original
punishment order, as well as the appellate order, it transpires to
this Court that the details of the earlier punishments awarded to
the petitioner have been incorporated in the show-cause notice.
The authority issuing the show-cause notice has only indicated
about consistently poor performance of the petitioner and, on
that basis, expressed a tentative opinion while calling upon him
to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Rule
26 of the BSF Rules, 1969. An indication has also been made as
to why he should not be retired from service.
6 It further transpires to this Court that, despite
several punishments having been awarded to the petitioner, the
authorities did not remove him from service and instead decided
to retire him from service. Errors committed in day-to-day work
Patna High Court CWJC No.198 of 2025(8) dt.22-06-2026
4/4
may be capable of improvement, but where such lapses continue
repeatedly despite the imposition of punishments, the
conclusion drawn by the authorities that there is no likelihood of
improvement on the part of the petitioner.
7. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the
original authority as well as the appellate authority, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere in the present matter.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.