contended that the learned Single Judge transgressed the
permissible limits of judicial review by interfering with the
disciplinary proceedings without undertaking an examination of
the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the misconduct alleged
against the appellant. It was submitted that the scope of
interference in disciplinary matters being limited, the learned
Single Judge erred in setting aside the disciplinary action without
adjudicating the case on its merits.
15. It was further urged that the writ petition was allowed solely
on the ground that the impugned orders were non-speaking,
without addressing or deciding vital issues arising in the matter,
including the question of territorial jurisdiction, compliance with
the procedural requirements prescribed under the BSF Rules, the
alleged plea of guilt, and the appellant’s habitual absenteeism. On
these premises, it was contended that the impugned judgment
could not be sustained in law and deserved to be set aside, with a
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 05:15:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5964-DB] (6 of 21) [SAW-873/2023]
consequential direction for remand of the matter to the learned
Single Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law.