High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed seeking restoration of W.P.(C)1061/2022, which had been dismissed in default and on account of non-prosecution.
Brief Facts:
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.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two charges were framed against the Petitioner as per the charge sheet i.e., using threatening language with his superior officer and violating the good order and discipline of the force. He stated that SSFC conducted the proceedings against the Petitioner and vide order dated 04th March 2017, the Petitioner was found guilty of both the charges and consequently dismissed from service.
He stated that the Petitioner preferred a petition under Section 117 of the BSF Act, challenging his dismissal order dated 04th March 2017. He emphasises that Respondent, has rejected the petitioner's petition and confirmed the findings dated 04th March 2017 passed by THQ 85 BN BSF Malkangiri, Odisha. It was submitted 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 stated that at the time of incident, the Petitioner was slightly disturbed as his wife was unwell.
HC’s Observations and Held:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that 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.
HC stated that 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. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that the Petitioner was in the habit of overstaying his leave.
HC while considering the Petitioner’s past conduct and the offences committed by him, opined that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the offences and calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla
Case Title: Ex (CON) Chandan Kumar Sharma v. Union of India
Case Details: W.P.(C) 1061/2020
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
