Patna High Court
Pawan JosiversusUnion of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to set aside the dismissal order.
Summary
The petitioner, a constable in the Border Security Force, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to set aside his dismissal order dated 11‑11‑2016 and a subsequent rejection of his reinstatement plea. He claimed the dismissal was unjustified, citing an emergency illness of his wife and child, and argued that he was the sole breadwinner deserving sympathetic consideration. The Union of India contested, raising a preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction and highlighting the petitioner's repeated unauthorized absences, multiple punishments, and alleged submission of false documents. The court examined whether the disciplinary action taken by the armed forces, a matter of internal discipline, could be interfered with by a writ jurisdiction. Concluding that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated a pattern of unauthorized leave and that the authority’s decision was within its disciplinary powers, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal order of the BSF constable can be set aside by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement on grounds of medical emergency and livelihood considerations.
- Whether the High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner’s repeated unauthorized absences and alleged false documents justify the dismissal.
Subjects
- BSF
- dismissal
- writ of certiorari
- unauthorised leave
- discipline
- armed forces
- reinstatement
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2776 of 2022
======================================================
Pawan Josi S/o Sri Krishna Deo Josi Constable No. 13100154 (Sweeper) 61
BN, BSF, Head Quarter North Bengal Frontier Post- Kadamtala, District-
Darjeeling West Bengal. Presently residing at Itahari, Post- Fudki Chak, P.S.-
Gogri, District- Khagariya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Union of India through Ministry of Defence, New Delhi
2. The Director General of Boader Security Force, New Delhi.
3. The DY Inspector General/ PSO For IG BSF NB FTR, Post Office-
Kadamtala, District- Darjeeling, West Bengal.
4. The Commandant 61 BN, BSF HQ, Raninagar, Post- Patakata District-
Jalpaiguri, West Bengal.
5. The Assistant Commandant (MIN) of IG, BSF, NB, HQ, North Begal FTR,
Post- Kadamtala, District- Darjeeling, West Bengal.
6. The Officer Commandant, BSF, 61 BN, HQ, Raninagar, Post- Patakata,
District- Jalpaiguri, West Bengal.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (ASG)
Mr.Anshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the Union of India.
I.A. No.01 of 2024.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the I.A.
No.01 of 2024 has become infructuous. Therefore, he is
pressing the same.
3. As such, the present I.A. No.01 of 2024 is
hereby dismissed as having become infructuous.
Re:- C.W.J.C. No.2776 of 2022
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.2776 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
2/4
the present writ petition has been filed with the following
reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of writ in nature of
certiorari for setting aside the order dt. 11.11.2016
passed by commandant 61 BN, BSF, whereby and
where under the petitioner was dismissed from his
service and order dt. 25.07.2017 by which the
representations of the petitioner for reinstate were
rejected by Dy Inspector General ,BSF,NB,FTR
which are mechanical and unjustified itself.
(ii) For issuance of other appropriate
writ/writs commanding and directing to the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his post
by considering sympathetically in view of having
look over his livelihood.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner was discharging his duty honestly and sincerely. He
further submits that the petitioner was absent from his service
without grant of leave due to emergency illness of his wife. He
further submits that due to pregnancy his wife was suffering
from Pneumonia and admitted in Suray Dharsan Nursing Home
at Khagariya on 05.08.2016. He further submits that his child
was also suffering from Pneumonia and he was under treatment
of Child Specialist since 06.08.2016 to 30.10.2016 for which
certificate has been issued by the doctor.
6. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a sole
Patna High Court CWJC No.2776 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
3/4
bread earner and total responsibility upon his shoulder.
Therefore, a sympathetical view may be taken into
consideration.
7. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that
a counter-affidavit has been filed in which preliminary objection
with regard to territorial jurisdiction has been raised and on
merit, it has been submitted that petitioner even remained absent
for a continuous period of 103 days which shows his casual and
irresponsible behaviour particularly when he is working in a
defence service.
8. Counsel further submits that during his short span
of service i.e., 3 years 8 months in the BSF, he was awarded
punishment on 3 occasions and always due to unauthorised
leave. On many early occasions, keeping sympathetical view,
his service was regularised even after imposing punishment, but
this time, his earlier conduct has also been looked into. He
further submits that on his representation due consideration has
been taken and sympathetical view has also been taken, but it
has been found that with a view to get relief, he has placed a
false and fabricated documents.
9. In the light of the submissions made by the parties,
it transpires to this Court that being a member of Armed force,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2776 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
4/4
discipline is the prime duty and here petitioner was in habit of
absence without leave about which due consideration has been
made in the order of Appellate Authority as well as in the
Original Authority. It is due to this reason, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the decision of the authority. As such, the
present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
10. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…