- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 6263 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT SHASHI REKHA W/O. LATE SHRI B.B. MYLARI RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. RAMARAYA STREET FORT BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 115 SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M SUMATHI .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, DHQ POST, NEW DELHI 110011 (BY ITS SECRETARY) 2. THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL BORDERB SECURITY FORCE, 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK NO.10, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003 3. COMMANDANT BORDER SECURITY FORCE Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 96 BATTALLION, PATIRAM WEST BENGAL – 733 158 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAMOD, CGSC FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 29.9.2014 VIDE ANN-A AS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO NATURAL JUSTICE. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY ALL THE BACK WAGES AND SERVICE BENEFITS AND SUCH OTHER BENEFITS THAT WOULD HAVE ACCRUED IF THE PETITIONER'S SON WAS IN SERVICE AND ALSO DEATH BENEFITS. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COST OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following prayer: i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 Estt/123/SSFC/RBM/96Bn/14/14708-12 dated 29.09.2014 which is at Annexure-A as illegal and opposed to natural justice. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the back wages and service benefits and such other benefits that would have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 accured if the petitioner’s son was in service and also death benefits. iii. Direct the respondents to pay the cost of the writ proceedings. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner's late son joined the respondent Border Security Force as Constable in 1997. On 11.01.2013, respondent No. 3 passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner's son for an offence under Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short ‘BSF Act’). The respondent No.3 again passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner's son for an offence punishable under Section 26 of BSF Act on 02.08.2013. The petitioner's son filed a statutory appeal under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act before the respondent No.2 on 02.11.2013 and the same was sent through registered post on 05.11.2013. On 14.11.2013, the petitioner's son got the reply from the second respondent that as per Rule 129 of the BSF Rules, 1969, that he has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 to obtain a copy of SSFC proceedings from the Chief Law Officer of the second respondent and hence, he has to file a fresh statutory petition on 14.11.2013. The petitioner’s son applied for statutory proceedings vide a letter. On 29.11.2013, the petitioner’s son collapsed at his house with fits and was admitted to SSM Hospital at Hassan. On 02.12.2013, the petitioner was discharged from SSM hospital and shifted to NIMHANS, Bangalore for further treatment. 3. The respondent No.2 sent a note with a copy of SSFC proceedings related to order of dismissal dated 11.01.2013 and not related to dismissal order dated 02.08.2013. The petitioner's son's counsel sends a letter to respondent No. 2 requesting for the correct copy of SSFC proceedings on 19.12.2013. The petitioner's son was discharged from NIMHANS to be under the palliative care of Snehadhan, NGO. The petitioner's son passed away on 25.12.2013. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 4. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 20481 of 2014, came to be disposed of vide order dated 11.08.2014. The second respondent has passed an order on the appeal filed by the petitioner's son confirming the order of dismissal order dated 02.08.2013. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, filed this writ petition. 5. The respondents filed a statement of objections, contending that the petitioner's son was in a state of intoxication on 08.07.2013 and he has also past history of state of intoxication and earlier he was convicted and he has undergone imprisonment. Hence, it is contended that the respondents have rightly terminated the petitioner's son from service. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is without any basis. She also submits that the petitioner's son was suffering from HIV and he fell down and he was unconscious. She also submits that the respondents have not produced any records to demonstrate that the petitioner's son was in a state of intoxication on 08.07.2013. The petitioner's son was terminated on 08.07.2013 while he was on a duty only on the ground that he was in a state of intoxication. The said contention was not established by the respondents. 8. Respondent No.2 without considering the said aspect has committed an error in passing the impugned order. She also submits that the petitioner has produced the medical records to establish that her son was suffering from HIV vide Annexure M2. Hence, the punishment imposed by the respondents is disproportionate to the gravity of offence. Hence, she submits that the impugned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on 08.07.2013, when the petitioner's son was on a duty, he was in the state of intoxication. Hence, he also submits that the petitioner's son had a past history of the same and earlier he was convicted and he has undergone imprisonment and later on he was reinstated and again he has committed the same offence punishable under Section 26 of the Border Security Force, 1968. The respondents have rightly terminated him from service. 9.1 To buttress his argument, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in the case of A. Murali Krishna versus Union of India and others1. He also submits that the petitioner's son was unfit for the work. He also submits the petitioner’s son was suffering from HIV, he was not fit to 1 2021 SCC Online Megh 232 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 work with a dangerous weapon. He submits that till his death he was in the state of stage 1. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's son was working in the respondent - Border Security Force as a Constable in 1997. Respondent No.3 has passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner's son on 11.01.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. The petitioner's son was reinstated, and thereafter he was promoted. The respondents took a lenient view and reinstated the petitioner's son into service. The petitioner’s son was posted to duty on 08.07.2013. 12. During the course of discharging the duty, the respondents found that the petitioner's son was in a state of intoxication and the respondents have initiated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner’s son for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. The charge memo was issued and the petitioner's son replied to the charge memo and thereafter an inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted a report alleging that the charges levelled against the petitioner's son were proved. 13. Respondent No. 3 has passed an order of termination from service dated 02.08.2013. The petitioner's son, aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service preferred an appeal before the second respondent. During the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner’s son has passed away and the petitioner continued with the appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent vide order dated 24.09.2014, dismissed the petition. The second respondent has passed an order dated 29.09.2014 vide Annexure A. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 14. From the perusal of the order passed by the second respondent, it discloses that the respondents have not produced any record to establish that as on 08.07.2013, the petitioner's son was in the state of intoxication. PW.2 has deposed that the petitioner was lying on the ground and froth was coming out of his mouth, he put some water on his face to bring him in a sense. He also found smell of alcohol coming out from his mouth. The respondents have not taken any steps to draw a blood from the petitioner's son to prove that on 08.07.2013, the petitioner's son was in the state of intoxication. Merely, the respondent No.2 has confirmed the order of dismissal based on the evidence of PW2 and PW3. No medical records are produced to show that the petitioner’s son was in the state of intoxication on 08.07.2013 while he was on duty. 15. A perusal of the records clearly discloses that no sufficient opportunity was provided to either the petitioner or the petitioner's son. Further, the impugned - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 order passed by the second respondent is entirely based on the evidence of PW2 to PW4, who merely deposed that they have found smell of alcohol from the mouth of the petitioner's son. They have not stated anything regarding the medical records. In the absence of medical records, the second respondent has committed an error in passing the impugned order. 16. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Megalaya in the case of A. Murali Krishna versus Union Bank of India and others (referred supra). I have perused the judgment relied upon by the Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents in the said case. In the said case, the petitioner has accepted his guilt and expecting a lenient treatment as could be seen from paragraph No.7 which reads as follows: “7. As it happens, the entire effort on the part of the writ petitioner’s case was to emphasize on the apparently unconscionable - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 punishment meted out to the writ petitioner following the discovery of the writ petitioner being intoxicated upon having obtained liquor from some village women. The attempt by the writ petitioner was to demonstrate that despite the writ petitioner accepting his guilt and expecting a lenient treatment, the writ petitioner was handed out the ultimate punishment of dismissal from service”. (emphasis supplied) 17. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner's son has not admitted the guilt. Hence, the burden is on the respondents to prove that the petitioner's son was intoxicated on 08.07.2013. The respondents except examining PWs.1 to PW.4, have not produced any records. Thus, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is arbitrary and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28007 WP No. 6263 of 2015 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed. iii. The respondents are directed to pay all the terminal benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv. Pending IA(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS