Deep Kumar Beri vs Uoi And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 5638 Del

6
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

     +     W.P.(C) 3923/2010, CM Nos.7860/2010 & 8576/2010

%                             Date of decision: 18th September, 2012

         DEEP KUMAR BERI                              ..... Petitioner
                      Through :         Ms. Nandini Sahni and
                                        Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Advs.
                           versus
         UOI AND ORS                               ..... Respondents
                           Through :    Mr Saqib and Mr. Neeraj
                                        Chaudhari, Advs. with DC
                                        Bhupinder Sharma, BSF.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

W.P.(C) 3923/2010

1. This writ petition has been filed laying a challenge to the order dated 11th February, 2010 passed by the BSF whereby the writ petitioner was compulsorily retired from service after a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 17 of the BSF Rules, 1969.

2. Our attention has been drawn to Rule 28A of BSF Rules, 1969 which provides a remedy of statutory petition to the Central Government to an officer who considers himself aggrieved by an order of termination of his service. The present writ petition filed on 1st June, 2010 was without availing the said remedy by the writ petitioner. In view of the availability of this alternative efficacious remedy, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

3. The petitioner has made a grievance that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, statutory remedy may be barred by limitation. Appropriate directions in this behalf can be made so that the petitioner is not prejudiced on the ground of the pendency of this matter.

We accordingly direct as follows:-

(i) Subject to the petitioner filing a petition in accordance with Rule 28A of the BSF Rules, 1969 within a period of six weeks from today, the respondents shall not press the objection of the same being barred by limitation. Such petition shall be entertained and decided on the merits of the petitioner's contentions.

(ii) The interim order passed by this court on 3rd June, 2010 shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. CM Nos.7860/2010 & 8576/2010 In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, these applications do not survive for adjudication. The applications are accordingly dismissed.

Dasti to parties.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2012/aj