The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the 2004 removal orders against former Border Security Force (BSF) Constable Pawan Prajapati, citing procedural infirmities under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1969. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma, in its February 27, 2026, judgment, remitted the matter for a reasoned fresh order after granting both sides a hearing opportunity, while directing immediate reinstatement but denying back wages from the removal date.
The dispute traces back to Prajapati’s dismissal on March 8, 2004, following a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (later 1969), for alleged misconduct. The single judge, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9900/2005 decided on July 19, 2023, found the original orders (March 8 and August 31, 2004) lacking in natural justice—specifically, no opportunity for the delinquent to cross-examine witnesses or adduce evidence—and violated Chapter VII of the 1969 Rules requiring a detailed inquiry report.
Prajapati, now 51 and residing in Ajmer, challenged his abrupt termination, arguing it bypassed mandatory safeguards like a show-cause notice on the inquiry report and personal hearing. The bench agreed, observing that the disciplinary authority’s mechanical approval without application of mind rendered the process vitiated. It directed completion of the remand within three months of the certified copy’s receipt.
Aggrieved by the denial of back wages and the remand (which could prolong uncertainty), Prajapati appealed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 873/2023, seeking full relief including arrears from 2004. Conversely, the Union of India and BSF Director General, in connected D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 77/2024, contested the single judge’s interference, claiming the inquiry was fair and reinstatement unwarranted after two decades.
Dismissing both appeals, Justice Sangeeta Sharma, authoring the verdict, held that while procedural errors justified quashing and remand, back wages were rightly withheld pending final outcome to avoid prejudice if guilt is re-established. “The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service but he will not be entitled to get any back-wages from the date of his removal from service till his reinstatement,” the single judge had ruled, a stance the division bench upheld as equitable.
The Court emphasized the paramilitary’s disciplinary rigor but stressed adherence to Article 311 safeguards: no removal without reasonable opportunity. It rejected the Union’s delay plea, noting Prajapati’s timely 2005 writ despite pendency. The judgment balances employee rights with service discipline, underscoring that remands ensure substantive justice without undue hardship.
Case Title: Pawan Prajapati v. Union of India & Anr. | D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 873/2023 and 77/2024
Click HERE for full judgment.
Lawcutor 