IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Upendra Prakash Balodi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8489 of 2021 & C.M. Nos. 26255-26257 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to general force court order (Para 1) |
| 2. premature petition due to unexhausted remedies (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. direction to file statutory petition (Para 4) |
| 4. order for case management and notification (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
CMs 26255-56/2021 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the applications are disposed of.
WP(C) 8489/2021 & CM 26257/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29th June, 2021 passed by the General Force Court whereby the petitioner has been found guilty of twelve charges and order dated 30th June, 2021 whereby the General Force Court has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and in addition sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment of eighteen months.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that it is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted its statutory remedy by filing a petition to the Central Government/Director-General/prescribed Officer superior in Command to the one who had confirmed the finding or sentence of the Force Court. In support of his submission, he relies upon Section 131(2) of The Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), which reads as under:
"131. Petition against order, finding or sentence of Force Court.-
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by a finding or sentence of any Force Court which has confirmed, may present a petition to the Central Government, the Director-General or any prescribed officer superior in command to the one who confirmed such finding or sentence, and the Central Government, the Director-General, or the prescribed officer, as the case may be, may pass such order thereon as it or he thinks fit."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that till date the petitioner had not exhausted the aforesaid statutory remedy.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition and pending applications are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 131(2) of the Act within a week. In the event, such a petition is filed within the aforesaid period, the same shall be disposed of by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law within three weeks. Till the disposal of the petitioner's petition under Section 131(2) of the Act, the arrangement made by the learned predecessor Division Bench vide order dated 10th August, 2021 in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being WP(C) No.1977/2020 shall continue.
5. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
A writ petition is premature if the petitioner has not exhausted available statutory remedies as outlined in the governing Act.
Timely adjudication of statutory petitions under the BSF Act is essential for ensuring due process and protecting the rights of personnel.
Delay in filing a writ petition can result in dismissal, as equitable relief may be denied based on the principles of delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
Summary Security Force Court proceedings must be conducted with due process, but admissions of guilt by the petitioners validated their dismissals despite procedural irregularities.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in a force and upheld the penalty of dismissal from service based on the serious nature of the charges.
Disciplinary actions within the Border Security Force must uphold strict standards of conduct, and procedural grievances not raised timely do not warrant overturning a dismissal.
The court upheld the dismissal from service based on the lack of prejudice from procedural irregularities and the petitioner's failure to contest the charges during the Summary Security Force Court p....
The court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision to deny the petitioner a Permanent Commission based on self-reported adverse assessments, highlighting the need for a timely resolution of statut....
Entitlement to documents and expeditious adjudication under the BSF Act.
A petitioner is entitled to access documents of disciplinary proceedings to ensure fairness in adjudication under the BSF Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.