B.N. Chaturvedi, J.
1. The petitioner was enrolled in Border Security Force as Constable on 31st June, 1988. Initially, he was posted at Malda in West Bengal. Thereafter, from time to time, he remained posted at Delhi, Hissar, Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. In the course of service, he developed some mental disorder. In December, 1997, his condition deteriorated. He was diagnosed as suffering from Atypical Psychosis and Schizophrenia. He was treated for the same at different places, including at BSF Hospital. Under medical advice, he was given light duty(unarmed). In August 1999, he sought to resign from service. He was, accordingly, discharged from service without any financial benefits with effect from 18.8.1999 vide order of even date. According to the petitioner, as he was not in a sound state of mind on account of the aforesaid mental ailment with which he was suffering from, his application seeking to resign from service could not have been acted upon and in view of Rule 25 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, he could not have been discharged from service without his medical examination by a medical board.
2. The petitioner made a representation for his reinstatement or in the alternative for retiral benefits. His representation was, however, rejected by an order dated 31.1.2000 which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter of even date. Thereafter, in May, 2001, the wife of the petitioner also represented to the Director General, Border Security Force for reinstatement of the petitioner or in the alternative for grant of retiral benefits to him and his family and also for her compassionate appointment in place of the petitioner. There was, however, no response to her representation from the respondents. The petitioner, in the circumstances, filed instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issue of appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the order dated 19.8.1999 discharging him from service and directing the respondents to reinstate him with all past benefits and/or to grant him all retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity, etc. and to consider his wife for a compassionate appointment.
3. Opposing the petition, the respondents state that the impugned order of discharge was made in acceptance of letter of resignation dated 18.8.1999 submitted by the petitioner. It is added that, no doubt, the petitioner was suffering from some depression for which he was being treated, such ailment, it is claimed, had not incapacitated him from performing his duties. He was, thus, not required to be discharged or retired from service on medical ground. Setting out the normal procedure for discharge on medical ground, it is stated that the persons who are not medically fit to perform their duties in the Force even after being given continuous treatment in the BSF Hospital or in other recognised hospitals, their cases are reviewed by the medical board once a year to ascertain their medical condition and to find if they are fit to continue their normal duties. In case any person is unable to perform his assigned duties due to illness, he is placed in low medical category after taking into account the nature of ailment and past history/record of treatment and in the event of his representing for discharge/retirement, such a person is required to appear before a Review Medical Board for their opinion and it is only on Review Medical Board's opinion that the person is unable to perform his duties due to his ailment, that an order in terms of Rule 25 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 for retirement/discharge, is made.
4. In the present case, it is asserted that since the petitioner himself opted to resign from service, his resignation was accepted vide order dated 19.8.1999 after the concerned Commander had interviewed the petitioner to confirm his request for resignation.
5. According to the respondents, since the petitioner was not discharged, rather he had resigned from service, the question of his reinstatement did not arise and, consequently, his representation in that respect was rejected. It is stated that since the petitioner had not completed twenty years of qualifying service before resigning from service, he could not be considered for any retiral benefits, as claimed. Similarly, as the petitioner himself opted to resign from service, there was no justification on the part of the petitioner's wife to represent for her appointment on compassionate grounds.
6. We have heard the parties' counsel.
7. The fact that the petitioner made an application dated 18.8.1999 offering to resign from service is not in dispute. He was interviewed by Commandant on that very date to dissuade him from seeking resignation. The petitioner, however, persisted with his request. The Commandant, thereforee, accepted his offer for resignation and he stood discharged from service w.e.f. 31.8.1999(A.N.). An order was, accordingly, issued on 19th of August, 1999 stating that notice for resignation from service tendered by the petitioner had been accepted by the competent authority w.e.f. 31.8.1999(A.N.) without any financial benefits. The petitioner represented to the respondents for his reinstatement in November, 1999. The same was, however, rejected and the order of rejection was duly communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.1.2000. A reference to the representation made by the petitioner reveals that on an earlier occasion also he had made a similar application seeking to resign from service, which had, however, not been granted. He appears to have applied for the second time on 18th of August, 1999 when his request was acceded to after the Commandant of the unit concerned satisfied himself in the course of interview that the petitioner was persisting with his request for resignation from service.
8. The petitioner has filed photocopies of some medical papers concerning his treatment for mental disorder at different hospitals. At one point of time, on being medically advised for light duty, the petitioner was given light duty(unarmed). The copies of medical papers filed by the petitioner simply show that he had been under treatment for his mental ailment. However, in none of these papers there is an indication that the petitioner's mental faculty had been affected on account of the ailment to an extent that he was not in a position to discriminate between his right and wrong actions. Before his discharge, the petitioner had continued to perform his duties, though of a light nature while undergoing treatment. At no point of time he was put in low medical category. There is no material to show that due to ailment, the mental faculty of the petitioner had been affected to an extent that he was rendered incapable of making decisions in right perspective of a given situation. thereforee, the argument on behalf of the petitioner that exercise of option on his part seeking to resign from service was vitiated on account of the his having been rendered incapable of discerning between right and wrong appears to be far fetched and without any sound basis. It having been a case of discharge from service on a notice for resignation from service, Rule 25 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 has no application to the facts of the case. It was not the respondents who took initiative in discharging the petitioner from service on medical ground, rather the discharge from service was as a result of acceptance of offer for resignation made by the petitioner himself which was not induced by any pressure or undue influence. Having resigned from service before completing qualifying service of 20 years for retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity etc, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to any financial benefits. Further, for the same reason, there is no case for entertaining any request on behalf of the petitioner's wife for compassionate appointment in place of the petitioner. Thus, no interference is warranted with the order of discharge of petitioner from service without any financial benefits, rejection of his representation for reinstatement, retirement benefits etc., and appointment of his wife on compassionate ground.
9. Finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. No costs.