New Delhi: Shocked that a paramilitary officer in a coma on ventilator support was slapped with a show cause notice of retirement from service, Delhi High Court has stayed the move.The court has also demanded an explanation from Border Security Force (BSF) administration on how such a notice could be issued, after the wife of the inspector challenged it.Last week, a bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla put on hold further proceedings emanating from a show cause notice of medical retirement from service of Sunil Kumar. It asked the Centre’s counsel to explain “as to how such a show cause notice could at all be issued to a person who is suffering from Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy following cardiac arrest of unknown cause with hypoxic ischemic brain insult in the form of minimal conscious state with spastic quadriparesis and with bladder and bowel incontinence,” noting that his wife submits that her husband is “practically in a vegetative state, in a coma and on ventilator support.“The notice issued by Commandant of BSF informed Kumar that due to his diagnosis by a medical board, he is “considered ‘unfit’ for further service in BSF with 90% disability” and added “it has been desired that you may be boarded out from the service on the ground of physical unfitness under the provision of Rule 25 of BSF Rule, 1969.”In response, the Centre’s counsel maintained that the show cause notice was issued in accordance with law and that, in fact, a response to the show cause notice has also been submitted, which is under consideration. However, the court pointed out that a response had to be furnished by the distraught wife, as Kumar, in view of his condition, was in no position to answer the show cause notice.“Strangely, the show cause notice even states in para 4 that if no reply is received within the stipulated time, it would be presumed that Sunil Kumar — (who) as we have pointed out, is in a vegetative state and is in no position to respond to the show cause notice — has nothing to say against the proposed action and an ex parte decision would be taken,” an anguished court pointed out, explaining why the wife had no option but to respond.The high court said, “With the manner in which the show cause notice dated Aug 5, 2025, has come to be issued. We have our doubts as to whether the authority issuing the show cause notice is even aware of the implications of the condition in which the petitioner’s husband is, presently.”The bench recorded in its order that an option was offered to BSF to withdraw the show cause notice given the court’s preliminary finding, but the counsel maintained that the notice was issued in accordance with the law and Kumar’s response would be considered and a decision taken. The court then decided to stay the notice and sought an affidavit from BSF, posting the matter for hearing in Jan next year.
