Delhi High Court
Ex. Constable Manjunath vs Uoi on 9 December, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
i.14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 9th December, 2009
+ W.P.(C) 11709/2009
EX. CONSTABLE MANJUNATH ..... Petitioner
Through: Naik H.K., Advocate
versus
U.O.I. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Yadhunath Singh,
Dy.Commandant, BSF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. After serving a charge sheet and bringing the
petitioner before the Summary Security Force Court a finding
of guilt has been returned on the evidence led notwithstanding
that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. In view of the
finding of the Summary Security Force Court the Disciplinary
Authority has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from
service. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed vide order dated - Jan 2009.
W.P.(C) No.11709/2009 Page 1 of 5
2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the petitioner
along with a constable Sibishan were detailed for duty at Naka
Point No.2 in the area of Sodepur Bop. At 7:25 PM the
petitioner used the SLR Butt No.271 of Constable Sibishan and
attempted a suicide.
3. The petitioner was evacuated to the Government
hospital and therefrom to a super specialty hospital at Kolkata.
4. The company commander lodged the FIR pertaining
to the incident on 23.11.2005.
5. In the charge sheet issued to the petitioner the date
of the incident got recorded as 22.11.2005 instead of
21.11.2005.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the
following issues before us at the hearing of the writ petition.
It is firstly urged that by indicating to the petitioner that the
incident took place on 22.11.2005 a serious prejudice has
been caused to the petitioner for the reason the incident in
question actually took place on 21.11.2005. The second plea
urged is that there a delay in registration of the FIR which is
fatal. The third contention urged is that the recommendations
of the Commanding Officer to inflict the punishment of
dismissal form service have been simply initialed by the
Reviewing Authority. It is urged that the Reviewing Authority
W.P.(C) No.11709/2009 Page 2 of 5
has to independently consider the matter. The fourth
submission urged is that the petitioner has obtained a
certificate from the Government hospital at Davanageri as per
which the petitioner is fit for employment. Lastly it is urged
that the service profile of the petitioner is clean and thus the
punishment inflicted is disproportionate.
7. With respect to the first plea urged, we note that
the Appellate Authority has noted the same and in our opinion
has recorded a correct finding relatable thereto. The finding
returned is that the record of the Summary Security Force
Court Proceedings shows that the petitioner clearly understood
that he was being charged with reference to the act of his
attempting to commit suicide and that the said Act was
committed on 21.11.2005 and that the petitioner was not
confused with reference to the typographic error of the date
being recorded in the charge memo as 22.11.2005.
8. Pertaining to the second plea we note that the said
issue has also been noted by the Appellate Authority but has
not been dealt with. The incident in question took place in the
late evening of 21.11.2005. It took place at the Indo-
Bangladesh Border. The concern of the fellow officers and the
jawans was to first ensure good medical aid to the petitioner
and thereafter to lodge the FIR.
W.P.(C) No.11709/2009 Page 3 of 5
9. Even otherwise, unless it is shown that the
consequences of a belated FIR is manipulation of evidence or
planting any eye witness the same is inconsequential. None
has been shown.
10. That the past service record of the petitioner is
satisfactory has been noted by the Appellate Authority who
has returned a finding that notwithstanding the petitioner
having a clean service record but the offence of attempt to
commit suicide shows the suicidal tendency of the petitioner.
It has been noted that being a Member of an Armed Force, the
petitioner cannot function as a constable without being armed
with arms and ammunitions. It has been held that under the
circumstances it would be dangerous to retain the petitioner in
service who would always be armed.
11. We concur.
12. That the petitioner has been declared fit by a
Government doctor to perform duties is irrelevant for the
reason it is not a case where the petitioner has been removed
from service on account of physical infirmity.
13. With respect to the plea that the Reviewing Officer
has simply countersigned the recommendations of the
Commandant who is the Disciplinary Authority, suffice would it
be to state that the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner is
W.P.(C) No.11709/2009 Page 4 of 5
the Commandant. His decision is a reasoned decision. The
Reviewing Authority having countersigned the same, shows
that the Reviewing Authority had no reasons to differ with the
recommendations and the findings of the Commandant.
14. We find no merit in the writ petition which is
dismissed.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J.
DECEMBER 09, 2009
mm
