Delhi High Court
Ex (Con) Chandan Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2022
$~A-20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1061/2020
EX (CON) CHANDAN KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.S.D.Mishra, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Dilbag Singh, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 24th February, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing
C.M.No. 9746/2022
1. Present application has been filed seeking restoration of
W.P.(C)1061/2022, which had been dismissed in default and on account of
non-prosecution.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner states that the counsel
for the Petitioner was unwell and thus could not appear on the last date of
hearing i.e. on 17th January, 2022. He states that non-appearance on the part
of learned counsel for the Petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate.
3. Issue notice. Mr.Dilbag Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
the respondent.
4. Keeping in view of the averments in the application, the same is
allowed and the matter is restored to its original status.
5. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1061/2020
6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is
taken up for hearing.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 27th September 2017 passed by DG BSF,
whereby the Petitioner's dismissal order dated 04th March 2017 has been
confirmed and the Petitioner has been dismissed from service. Petitioner
also seeks re-instatement with all consequential benefits.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that two charges were framed
against the Petitioner as per the charge sheet dated 12th May 2016 i.e. using
threatening language with his superior officer and violating the good order
and discipline of the force. He states that SSFC conducted the proceedings
against the Petitioner on 06th September 2016 and vide order dated 04th
March 2017, the Petitioner was found guilty of both the charges and
consequently dismissed from service.
9. He states that the Petitioner preferred a petition dated 17th May 2017
under Section 117 of the BSF Act, challenging his dismissal order dated 04th
March 2017. He emphasises that Respondent, vide the impugned order dated
27th September 2017, has rejected the petitioner's petition and confirmed the
findings dated 04th March 2017 passed by THQ 85 BN BSF Malkangiri,
Odisha.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasises that the Petitioner has
no criminal antecedents and since the Petitioner was the best cadet of his
unit, many persons are inimical to him. He also states that at the time of
incident, the Petitioner was slightly disturbed as his wife was unwell.
11. A perusal of the record reveals that the Petitioner had pleaded guilty
to the charges in the SSFC. Further, the Petitioner was a habitual offender
who had been punished seven times in the past and given warning twice for
using threatening and insubordinate language with his superiors.
12. Consequently, the defence of the petitioner that the Petitioner was
disturbed on the date of incident due to his wife's ill health 'cuts no ice' with
this Court!
13. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that the Petitioner was
in the habit of overstaying his leave.
14. Hence, considering the Petitioner's past conduct and the offences
committed by him, this Court is of the view that the punishment awarded to
the Petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the offences and calls for
no interference in writ jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2022
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
