Union Of India And Others vs Jadhav Sesh Rao And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1087 j&K

                                                                   Sr. No. 11
         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU
 CJ Court


 Case: CDLSW No. 27 of 2019
       In
       LPA No. 60 of 2019


Union of India and others                             ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                                   Through: Sh. Vishal Sharma, ASGI

                                   V/s

Jadhav Sesh Rao and another                                      .... Respondent(s)

                                   Through: None


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE


                                      ORDER

1. The appeal is reported to be filed beyond 62 days.

2. On the delay condonation application, notices were sent to the

respondents but despite service no one has put in appearance and filed

objections to the delay condonation application.

3. We have considered the averments made in the delay condonation

application and are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient

cause from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is

condoned.

4. Application CDLSW No. 27 of 2019 is disposed of.

5. Heard Sh. Vishal Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of

India.

6. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order

dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition

filed by respondent No. 1.

2 CDLSW N0. 27 of 2019 & LPA No. 60 of 2019

7. The facts reveal that respondent No. 1 was deputed in the BSF and

on the ground that he has not reported on duty and had remained absent for

12 days without any information and leave, he was punished with seven days

of rigours imprisonment. The said order of punishment was passed on the

basis of his statement pleading guilty recorded by the Commandant. The

learned Single Judge has set-aside the order of punishment on the ground

that the statement was inadmissible as it was not signed by the respondent. It

is not disputed that the statement of the respondent was not signed by him

therefore, we do not think that the said statement could have been relied and

made the basis for imposing the punishment. There is no error or illegality in

the judgment and order passed by the writ court.

8. Sh. Vishal Sharma, in the end submits that the writ court in setting

aside the order of punishment has not left it open for the authorities to take

fresh action which is necessary as in a discipline force such kind of omission

cannot be allowed to go unpunished.

9. We do not find any merit in the above submission inasmuch as the

respondent has already undergone seven days of imprisonment which was

imposed upon him. Therefore, he cannot be punished again for the same

offence.

10. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

11. The appellant may settle the period of absence of the respondent

in accordance with law.

                         (RAJNESH OSWAL)                       (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                   JUDGE                         CHIEF JUSTICE


Jammu
10.09.2021
SUNIL-I
                      Whether the order is speaking?     :            Yes/No
                      Whether the order is reportable?   :            Yes/No