Delhi High Court
Ex-Constable S. Jagaoeesan vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 August, 2023
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.08.2023
+ W.P.(C) 10540/2023 & CM APPL. 40874/2023
EX-CONSTABLE S. JAGAOEESAN ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aniruddha Datta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Vinod
Tiwari, GP for UOI/R-1
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order of discharge dated 06.07.2001
contending that the same was passed without jurisdiction.
2. Petitioner was enrolled in Border Security Force in the year
1990. Petitioner was granted leave till 23.03.2001, however, petitioner
failed to report for duty after expiry of the leave and show cause
notice dated 02.06.2001 was issued.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.08.2023
14:13:34
3. Since no reply was received to the show cause notice, the
dismissal order dated 06.07.2001 was passed.
4. Petitioner has not challenged the said order or represented
against the order dated 06.07.2001 for over 22 years. The ground of
dismissal is that he was unauthorizedly absent for a period of 103
days.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 62 of the
BSF Act, 1968 has not been complied with. This submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit for the reasons that
show cause notice dated 02.06.2001 itself records that report relating
to his absence has been considered and the Commandant was satisfied
that the trial was Security Force Court was inexpedient and
impracticable.
6. Not only the petition is highly belated having been filed after 22
years of passing of the impugned order, the impugned order has been
passed keeping in view the fact that petitioner had absented from duty
for over 103 days.
7. The Supreme Court by judgment dated 28.07.2023 in Civil
Appeal No. 246/2017 titled as 'Ex. Sepoy Mandan Prasad Vs. Union
of India & Ors.', has specifically held that discipline is the hallmark
of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service.
8. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.08.2023
14:13:34
impugned order; both on account of delay and latches and also on
account of merits. This, of course, is without prejudice to the
objections raised by the respondent with regard to the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.
9. We find no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MANOJ JAIN, J
AUGUST 10, 2023
'rs'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.08.2023
14:13:34
