W.P.(C) 4366/2026, High Court of Delhi (Amit Mahajan, J. authoring; Anil Kshetarpal, J.) — petition dismissed; pending application (CM APPL. 21249/2026) disposed of. A BSF Sub-Inspector (earlier Assistant Sub Inspector), dismissed from service by the General Security Force Court on 12.12.2024 for two charges of absenting himself without leave (absence of around four years commencing 12.12.2017), with the absence period treated as 'Dies-Non', sought quashing of the dismissal-related orders, reinstatement with continuity, and subsistence allowance/arrears. Held: (i) the FIR of 03.01.2018 alleging embezzlement of welfare funds was ex facie disjunct from the charges of unauthorised absence; only BSF authorities can try a person for unauthorised absence and it cannot be tried in criminal courts, so the plea that disciplinary action was barred during the pendency of the criminal case (Section 80, BSF Act, 1968) was devoid of merit; (ii) non-payment of subsistence allowance does not ipso facto vitiate disciplinary proceedings — in Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1973) 1 SCC 656 and State of Bihar v. Arbind, (2013) 16 SCC 615 the employees demonstrated they were handicapped in facing the enquiry for want of funds, whereas this Petitioner fully participated; the facts of both precedents were distinguished; (iii) the Petitioner, whose deemed suspension flowed from his arrest, failed to report to his place of posting despite multiple letters after bail, his Delhi attachment was admittedly temporary, the bail order imposed no condition to remain in Delhi, his medical documents did not credence persistent depression, and his absence was deliberate and without cogent explanation, so he could claim no monetary benefits for the absence period; (iv) the finding of guilt was upheld and, absent material showing the absence was unavoidable, the punishment of dismissal was appropriate and plausible. No ground made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
