Gauhati High Court
Banjit Das vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 19 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010004222025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/95/2025
BANJIT DAS
S/O LATE UMESH CH. DAS,
R/O VILL-HALAPAKURI, PO-HOWLY,
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781316
VERSUS
1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TOTHE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, BLOCK-V EAST, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL
BLOCK-V EAST R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110066
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FTR HQR GUWAHATI
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL SHQ
SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL BONGAIGAON ASSAM
5:THE COMMANDANT
15TH BN SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL
KAJALGAON DIST. CHIRAN
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India.
Page No.# 2/6
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
19.11.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. J.P. Chauhan, learned Advocate for the
appellant and Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India for the respondents.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed in WP(C)
No.5205/2017, a learned Single Judge of this Court has approved of the
decision of removal of the appellant from the service of the Constable
(General Duty) on account of his unsuitability for being continued in
service.
3. The appellant served as a Constable (General Duty) in
Sashastra Seema Bal (in short, SSB) at Bongaigaon. He had availed of the
Earned Leave with effect from 05.10.2009 to 13.12.2009 but he never
joined his service thereafter.
His contention is that he was under treatment for his mental
illness during that time.
The aforesaid fact has been disproved by the authorities and
the same has been accepted by the learned Single Judge.
4. When the appellant was not found to have resumed his
service for a period of 60 days after completion of the period of his
Earned Leave, a Court of Inquiry was convened, which reported that the
Page No.# 3/6
appellant was a deserter from the Force.
5. This order of the Court of Inquiry was attempted to be
communicated to the appellant at his residential address but there was
no response of the appellant in connection with such decision to hold
him as a deserter.
6. The respondents thereafter requested the Superintendent of
Police, Barpeta to apprehend the appellant, but to no avail, for the
reason that even his family members had no idea regarding his
whereabouts for the last two years.
Thereafter, the Commandant of 15th Battalion, SSB,
Bongaigaon recorded the fact that the appellant had overstayed his
leave and was declared a deserter, and by a communication dated
13.07.2010 asked the appellant to join his duties within 15(fifteen) days
from the date of issuance of such letter, failing which, he would be
removed from the service.
7. Since there was no response to the afore-noted
communication dated 13.07.2010 as well, the Commandant of 15 th
Battallion, SSB, Bongaigaon, vide his order dated 12.10.2010 removed the
appellant from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 18(ii) of the
Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009 (in short, 'SSB Rules, 2009) read with Rule
26 thereof.
8. The provisions of Rule 18(ii) empower the Commandant to
enforce the penalty of removal from service of an enrolled member of
Page No.# 4/6
the Force on the ground of unsuitability.
9. The procedure for termination of service of enrolled member
of the Force is provided under Rule 26 which provides that before passing
such order of termination, the concerned member of the Force shall be
informed about his unsuitability; would be furnished with the particulars of
all matters adverse to him; and shall be called upon to urge any reasons
he may wish to put forward in favour of his retention in service.
The proviso in Rule 26 further clarifies as to what steps be taken
if there is no response from the employee.
10. The major contention of the appellant here is that the
provisions contained in Rule 26 of the SSB Rules, 2009 were not followed
before the issuance of removal order dated 12.10.2010.
11. The facts of the case are self-explanatory.
The appellant was a declared deserter, as noted above,
based on the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry. Thereafter, an
attempt was taken to apprehend him, but to no avail. Subsequently, the
Commandant, 15th Battalion, SSB proceeded to remove the appellant
from service; for which necessary communication was made, which also
went un-responded.
12. The appellant had never resumed his service nor submitted his
response to the communication dated 13.07.2010. The appellant could
not be informed because he was not to be found; even his family
members, as noted above, had no idea where he had disappeared. If
Page No.# 5/6
he was undergoing any medical treatment, he or his family members
could have informed the Unit; but the complete absence of any
communication from the side of the appellant made it very clear that he
was a deserter for the Police Force, making him absolutely unsuitable for
being retained in service.
That apart, when after 5(five) years he appealed against such
order of removal along with medical prescription of his illness, the same
was also not found to be convincing and the appeal was dismissed.
13. The learned Single Judge has examined the medical papers
furnished by the appellant and has found that the treating doctor had
certified that the appellant had been suffering from psychological illness
for a long duration, which had severe debilitating impact on his cognitive
faculties including his mental tranquility.
Even during the period that the appellant was under medical
treatment, he had absquatulated. However, the treatment was
restarted, to which he had responded. He was but advised for not taking
alcohol during the treatment period.
There was another certificate on record indicating that the
appellant had improved significantly and had responded well to the
medication.
The learned Single Judge did not find this to be a good reason
for the appellant going incommunicado.
14. This is desertion simpliciter.
Page No.# 6/6
15. The order of removal of the appellant, in our estimation, was
justified.
16. We, therefore, put our imprimatur to the judgment which has
been questioned in the present appeal and dismiss this writ appeal in
limine.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
