Delhi High Court
Mukesh Kumar Verma vs Union Of India & Anr on 3 November, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16617/2025 & CM APPL. 68087/2025, CM APPL.
68088/2025
MUKESH KUMAR VERMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr.
C. Sanal Nambiar, Ms. Abhinav Shailly, Ms.
Chetna Singh and Mr. Shubham Mathur,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Pritish Sabharwal, SPC with
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar and Mr. Mehvish Khan
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 03.11.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails charge sheet dated 16 September 2025
issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ BSF
Jowai.
2. The charge-sheet contains the following articles of charge:
"First Charge AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD
BSF Act 1968 ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF THE
Section -40 FORCE
In that he, at 200 Bn BSF, during the period
March 2023 to June 2024 while performing
the duties of Second-in-Command in 200 Bn
BSF misused his authority as Unit Grievance
Redressal Officer to mentally harass Const
(GD) Dhanrashi of 200 Bn BSF(Now 178 BN
BSF) by pressurizing him to bring & keep his
wife with him against his will, thereby
violated the good order and discipline of the
Force.
Second Charge AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD
BSF Act 1968 ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF THE
Section -40 FORCE
In that he, at 200 Bn BSF, during the period
from March 2023 to June 2024, while
performing the duties of Second-in-Command
in 200 Bn BSF established telephone contact
with wife of Constable (GD) Dhanrashi of 200
Bn BSF (Now 178 Bn BSF) on several
occasions without his knowledge, thereby
violated good order and discipline of the
Force.
Third Charge AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD
BSF Act 1968 ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF THE
Section -40 FORCE
In that he
on 11-01-2023, while being posted as Second-
in-Command in 200 Bn BSF and during his
leave period, improperly and without
authority, visited the residence of a Smt Sapna
Chauhan, wife of Constable (GD) Dhanrashi
of 200 Bn BSF (Now 178 Bn BSF) in
Ayodhya, District (UP), without knowledge of
her husband as well as Unit Commandant,
which is an unethical conduct."
3. At the outset, Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, submits that this is the third visit of the petitioner to this
Court. Two earlier charge-sheets issued to the petitioner stand stayed.
He submits that the present charge sheet pertains to events which took
place prior to the events forming subject matter of the two earlier
charge sheets and that, therefore, this is merely a tool of harassment.
4. Of the charge sheets which stand stayed, we may note that the
first charge sheet had been issued consequent to allegations of sexual
harassment levelled against the petitioner which were investigated by
the Internal Complaints Committee1 of the respondent. Despite the
ICC exonerating the petitioner, a charge sheet had been issued to the
petitioner.
5. We had, therefore, vide our order dated 15 July 2025 observed
that, once the petitioner stood exonerated by the ICC, applying the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v State of Rajasthan2
and Medha Kotwal Lele v Union of India3, the only option for the
respondent was to disagree with the findings of the ICC, and not to
issue a substantive charge-sheet. That was the ground on which stay
was granted in the first writ petition.
6. The charge sheet forming subject matter of the second writ
petition was found to contain charges which were verbatim
reproductions of the charges which were part of the first charge sheet
in the first writ petition, which already stood stayed. Accordingly, we
granted stay in the second writ petition.
7. The charges in the present chargesheet forming subject matter
of present writ petition, however, are not subject matter of either of
the chargesheets which formed subject matter of the earlier writ
1 "ICC" hereinafter
2 (1997) 6 SCC 241
petitions. Though Mr. Singh seeks to submit that these charges pertain
to events which took place prior to the events forming subject matter
of the earlier charge-sheet, that cannot constitute a basis for us to
interdict the disciplinary proceedings.
8. The Supreme Court has, time and again, held that courts should
not interfere with disciplinary proceedings unless the proceedings are
initiated without jurisdiction, or if the facts alleged against the charged
officer, even if treated as true, do not make out a case of misconduct.4
9. The allegations contained in the charge sheet in the present case
cannot be said not to amount to misconduct, if they are true.
10. Mr. Singh has made fervent efforts to convince us that the
charges are imaginary. He submits that the visits of the petitioner to
the residences forming subject matter of the chargesheet were in his
official capacity as he was a Grievance Redressal Officer. He also
draws our attention to a letter dated 24 March 2023 addressed by the
DC/ADJT on behalf of the Commandant to the Sector Headquarters
which states that the allegations against the petitioner were unjustified.
11. The aforesaid letter clearly cannot constitute a sole basis for us
to quash the disciplinary proceedings following the impugned charge-
sheet. It shall always be open to the petitioner to rely on the said letter
or on any other evidence in his favour in the inquiry proceedings
which would follow the impugned chargesheet.
3 (2013) 1 SCC 297
4 Refer Union of India v Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357
12. Within the limited parameters of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in that regard, we are of the opinion that no case for
interference with the presently impugned chargesheet is made out.
13. The writ petition is accordingly premature and is dismissed as
such.
14. Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the charges against the petitioner.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
NOVEMBER 3, 2025
dsn
