Sr. No. 11
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: CDLSW No. 27 of 2019
In
LPA No. 60 of 2019
Union of India and others ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Sh. Vishal Sharma, ASGI
V/s
Jadhav Sesh Rao and another .... Respondent(s)
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The appeal is reported to be filed beyond 62 days.
2. On the delay condonation application, notices were sent to the respondents but despite service no one has put in appearance and filed objections to the delay condonation application.
3. We have considered the averments made in the delay condonation application and are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. Application CDLSW No. 27 of 2019 is disposed of.
5. Heard Sh. Vishal Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.
6. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1.
2 CDLSW N0. 27 of 2019 & LPA No. 60 of 2019
7. The facts reveal that respondent No. 1 was deputed in the BSF and on the ground that he has not reported on duty and had remained absent for 12 days without any information and leave, he was punished with seven days of rigours imprisonment. The said order of punishment was passed on the basis of his statement pleading guilty recorded by the Commandant. The learned Single Judge has set-aside the order of punishment on the ground that the statement was inadmissible as it was not signed by the respondent. It is not disputed that the statement of the respondent was not signed by him therefore, we do not think that the said statement could have been relied and made the basis for imposing the punishment. There is no error or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the writ court.
8. Sh. Vishal Sharma, in the end submits that the writ court in setting aside the order of punishment has not left it open for the authorities to take fresh action which is necessary as in a discipline force such kind of omission cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
9. We do not find any merit in the above submission inasmuch as the respondent has already undergone seven days of imprisonment which was imposed upon him. Therefore, he cannot be punished again for the same offence.
10. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
11. The appellant may settle the period of absence of the respondent in accordance with law.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
10.09.2021
SUNIL-I
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No