Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Ex-constable S. Jagaoeesan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10540 of 2023 & CM APPL. 40874 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Aniruddha Datta, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Vinod Tiwari, GP for UOI/R-1.

Discipline is a non-negotiable condition of service in the Armed Forces, as emphasized by the BSF Act, 1968 and supported by Supreme Court precedent.

Headnote:
BSF Act, 1968 - Unauthorized Absence - Discipline in Armed Forces
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Border Security Force (BSF) member, challenged the order of discharge passed due to unauthorized absence for 103 days.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dismissal order was passed in accordance with the BSF Act, 1968, and emphasized the importance of discipline in the Armed Forces, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
Issues: Unauthorized absence, Compliance with BSF Act, 1968, Delay in challenging the order
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the dismissal order, considering the petitioner's unauthorized absence and the importance of discipline in the Armed Forces as established by the BSF Act, 1968 and a Supreme Court judgment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.

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.

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 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document