J&K&L High Court Dismisses BSF Constable's Plea Against Voluntary Retirement After Beard Permission Was Revoked
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a BSF constable's plea challenging the acceptance of his voluntary retirement after permission granted to him to maintain a neatly trimmed beard was revoked, holding that the Srinagar Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal found that the cause of action had not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Srinagar Bench and observed that “cause of action or part thereof or fraction of cause of action must be one which is material, integral or essential part of the lis.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Khursheed Ahmad Khan seeking quashing of the order whereby his voluntary retirement was accepted and he was struck off the strength of his unit with effect from the same date. The petitioner claimed that the revocation of the beard permission had prompted him to seek voluntary retirement, while the respondents maintained that he had voluntarily opted for retirement and had denied any duress or compulsion.
The petitioner, a BSF constable, had initially been permitted to maintain a neatly trimmed beard pursuant to an order dated 6 January 2018. According to his case, that permission was revoked with immediate effect on 16 June 2023, following which he submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement on the very same day. His retirement application was accepted that day itself.
The petitioner subsequently sought withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement. The application was rejected and he was directed to take pension instead of resuming duties. He thereafter continued to approach the authorities, alleging that the cancellation of the permission to maintain a beard was vindictive and that he had been compelled to seek retirement.
The respondents disputed this account. They stated that the petitioner had himself expressed his desire to proceed on voluntary retirement and, when questioned by the Commandant in the presence of other officers, had expressly denied that his decision was the result of any duress or compulsion. According to the respondents, he had cited his mother's illness and his own medical condition and inability to endure difficult service conditions as the reasons for seeking retirement.
The respondents further stated that the petitioner was found with a long, free-flowing beard which, according to them, was contrary to the conditions under which permission had earlier been granted. They claimed that he had refused to trim it and that the permission was consequently revoked in order to maintain discipline and decorum in the Force.
Court's Observation
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the Srinagar Bench could entertain the challenge at all.
The respondents pointed out that the voluntary retirement application had been submitted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and that the impugned order had been passed by the Commandant, 50 Battalion BSF, at Praharinagar, Tura, Meghalaya. The Court accepted the preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction.
The petitioner sought to overcome the objection by contending that the Inspector General, BSF, Kashmir, had been arrayed as a respondent and that this was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Srinagar Bench.
The Court, however, found that the Inspector General, BSF, Kashmir had no nexus with the controversy. It noted that the material respondent in relation to the dispute was the Inspector General, BSF, Shillong.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Director General, BSF, New Delhi being a national-level authority could be subjected to the jurisdiction of every High Court.
Justice Oswal reiterated that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is linked to the place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The Court relied upon the principles reiterated by a coordinate Bench in Rajesh Kumar Tomar v. Union of India & Ors., including that even a fraction of the cause of action can confer jurisdiction only when that fraction is material, integral or essential to the dispute.
The Court reproduced the principle that “cause of action or part thereof or fraction of cause of action must be one which is material, integral or essential part of the lis.”
Applying this test, the Court found no material or integral part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of Srinagar. The acts and omissions forming the basis of the petitioner's grievance had taken place outside Jammu & Kashmir, while the relevant proceedings and orders had been undertaken by authorities situated outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Thus, the High Court did not examine on merits whether the revocation of the petitioner's beard permission was legally justified, whether the circumstances surrounding his voluntary retirement amounted to compulsion, or whether the acceptance of his retirement application was otherwise sustainable.
The dismissal was confined to the issue of territorial jurisdiction. The Court, however, left the petitioner free to approach the jurisdictional Court for redressal of his grievances.
Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326
Appearances
Petitioner: Ateeb Kanth, Advocate
Respondents: T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with Faizan Ali, CGC