Delhi High Court
Sonu Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 November, 2014
$~7, 14 to 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: 28.11.2014
7 W.P.(C) 4804/2014
SONU KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Tinu Bajwa & Mr. Sameer Sharma,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC
with Mr. Vinod Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
14 W.P.(C) 7228/2013
MOHIT RATHI ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Tinu Bajwa & Mr. Sameer Sharma,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.
Ram Gopal Pandey, Advocate
15 W.P.(C) 7235/2013
RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Tinu Bajwa & Mr. Sameer Sharma,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.
Ram Gopal Pandey, Advocate
W.P.(C) Nos. 4804/14, 7228/13, 7235/13, 34/14, 3237/14 Page 1 of 6
16 W.P.(C) 34/2014
DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Tinu Bajwa & Mr. Sameer Sharma,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Ms.
Sidi Arora & Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Advocate
17 W.P.(C) 3237/2014
MOHAN ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Tinu Bajwa & Mr. Sameer Sharma,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anurag Ahluwali, CGSC with Mr.
M.P. Singh, Mr. Amrit Singh
alongwith Sh. Jaswant Singh, SAO
Legal, SSB
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
%
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the common grievance of the petitioners
is that they had appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the Staff
Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'SSC') for appointment to the
post of Constable in Sashastra Seema Bal (in short 'SSB'). They qualified the
said examination and joined their services on 09.07.2012 in SSB, 41 Bn.,
Ranidanga (West Bengal).
2. By an impugned order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the Inspector
General, Frontier Headquarter, SSB, Guwahati, Assam, they were discharged
from services on the ground that they had failed to conduct themselves as an
efficient member of the Force.
3. Ms. Jyoti Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for these petitioners made
two fold submissions to challenge the said order. The first being; that vide
order dated 17.05.2013 itself, the Inspector General acting under the powers
conferred on him under Section 132 of SSB Act, 2007 read with Rule 185 of
SSB Rules, 2009 annulled the proceedings of Summary Force Court (in short
'SFC') on the ground that the said proceedings were illegal as the SFC had
been convened without taking over the case from the concerned Police/ Judicial
Authorities for invoking the concurrent jurisdiction of the Force Courts. On
the very same day, another order was passed by the same officer directing
discharge of these petitioners from service in terms of Clause 4 Part-II
(Condition of Service) of Appendix-I, under Rules 16 of SSB Rules, 2009 on
the ground that these petitioners had failed to conduct themselves as efficient
members of the Force.
4. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that after having
annulled the proceedings of the SFC, there was no other material available with
the said officer to take a decision to discharge these petitioners from service.
The other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that these
petitioners were never detained at the Railway Station by the GRP nor even by
the local Police and there is no criminal case registered against them as can be
manifest from the chargesheet issued against other Constables.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that
during the course of their training these petitioners were granted mid term
break for 14 days w.e.f. 20.01.2013 to 02.02.2013 and after availing the said
leave, they returned from New Delhi to 54th Bn SSB Debendranagar, Assam by
Guwahati Sampark Kranti Express on 01.02.2013 and on their way to
Guwahati, these petitioners had misbehaved with NCC girl cadets who were
also commuting in the same train and an FIR No.34/13 under Sections 354/307
IPC was registered against the recruits of SSB for creating public nuisance, at
GRP Police Station, Mughal Sarai, U.P. It is also the stand of the respondents
that 12 recruits were detained/ arrested by the GRP on 01.02.2013, out of
which two were released because they were having a train ticket for General
Compartment and other recruits were produced before the concerned
Magistrate on 02.02.2013 and were later on sent for further investigation. It is
also the stand of the respondents that the Court of Inquiry (in short 'COI') as
directed against the petitioners by the respondents found them to be
blameworthy and the Commanding Officer after affording them an opportunity
to be heard under Rule 46(1) of SSB Rules, 2009 had remanded the matter for
preparation of Record of Evidence (in short 'ROE') under the provisions of
Rule 51 of SSB Rules, 2009. It is also the stand of the respondents that on the
basis of evidence adduced in the ROE, the Commanding Officer had awarded
sentence of "Two months imprisonment in Force Custody" and "Forfeiture of
Pay and Allowances for 14 days".
7. In counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted the fact that the said
proceedings of the SFC were annulled by the Inspector General, Frontier
Headquarter, SSB, Guwahati, Assam vide order dated 17.05.2013 and these
petitioners were discharged from service by a separate order passed by the
same officer as they had failed to conduct themselves as efficient members of
the Force.
8. The learned CGSC for the respondents fairly submits that so far as these
petitioners are concerned, they were neither named in the said FIR nor have
they been charge-sheeted. Therefore, no criminal case is pending against them,
while against others a criminal case is pending adjudication before the
concerned Criminal Court.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that there being no criminal case
registered against these petitioners; the SFC proceedings directed against the
petitioners having been annulled vide order dated 17.05.2013 by the Inspector
General, Frontier Headquarter, SSB, Guwahati, Assam; the other order of the
same date passed by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarter, SSB,
Guwahati, Assam, having no other material to base itself upon, would be
legally unsustainable. Prejudice cannot be caused to the petitioners in the
absence of any incriminatory material implicating them of any wrong doing.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside qua these
petitioners and these Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed in the above terms.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2014
v
