Delhi High Court
Narendra Singh Rawat vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 February, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27.02.2025
+ W.P.(C) 2502/2025
NARENDRA SINGH RAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shyamsuman Singh and
Mr. Abhay Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2, dismissing the
Statutory Petitions filed by the petitioner against the termination of his
service by way of removal on the ground of furnishing false and
incorrect information at the time of appointment for the post of Sub-
Inspector (SI) in the Border Security Force (BSF).
2. The petitioner had joined the Indian Air Force ("IAF") as LAC
(Trade: Ops. Asstt.) on 04.04.2009. He was admittedly discharged
from the IAF on the ground of Medical Disability of 40%, on
30.09.2011, after completing only 3 and a half years of service.
3. Pursuant to the notice for appointment to the post of SI in Delhi
Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Central Industrial
Security Force Examination, 2019, the petitioner applied for the post
of SI (General Duty) in the BSF under the Ex-Servicemen (ESM)
category.
4. The petitioner, having successfully completed the selection
process, was offered appointment and joined the BSF on 17.05.2022,
whereafter, he underwent the basic training in the BSF Academy at
Tekanpur, Madhya Pradesh. On completion of the training, he was
posted to 153rd Bn., BSF on 07.06.2023.
5. A Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2024 was issued to him
asking him to show cause as to why his services be not terminated for
furnishing false and incorrect information at the time of enrolment and
appointment to the post of SI (GD).
6. In his reply, the petitioner claimed that due to a bona fide
mistake, he had mentioned in his application form that he had been
voluntarily discharged from the service by the Indian Air Force (IAF).
7. After considering his reply, by the Order dated 06.02.2024, the
petitioner was terminated from service by way of removal with effect
from 06.02.2024 in exercise of powers under Sub-Section 2 of Section
11 of the BSF Act, 1968 read with Rule 17 of the BSF Rules, 1969
without any pensionary benefits.
8. The petitioner submitted Statutory Petitions against the above
decision, which have now been dismissed by the Impugned Order.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was under an impression that he had to disclose if he had visited any
Doctor from the date of his discharge from the IAF till the date of the
application. He submits that as the petitioner had not visited any
doctor or suffered any ailment post his discharge from service with the
IAF, he answered in the negative. He submits that therefore, there was
no concealment or mis-statement in the application form of the
petitioner.
10. As far as the claim of the petitioner in the application form that
he had taken voluntary discharge from the IAF, he submits that the
same was filled in by a bona fide mistake by the petitioner and the
petitioner never had any intent to mislead the respondents or gain any
unauthorised benefits thereby.
11. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar
Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, he submits
that where the information suppressed is of trivial nature and it would
not have any effect on the service, the same cannot act as a ground for
terminating the services of the person concerned.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, however, we find no merit in the same.
13. It is not denied that the petitioner had been discharged from
service from the IAF on the ground of medical unfitness with 40%
disability for life. In answer to question No. 11(b) in the enrolment
form, the petitioner had, however, mentioned that he was voluntarily
discharged from the IAF. This cannot be considered as an innocuous
or bona fide mistake. There was, therefore, a deliberate attempt by the
petitioner to mislead the respondents and gain advantage thereby. The
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra), therefore,
cannot come in the aid of the petitioner.
14. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present
petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2025/ss/sk/IK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
