Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.HARI SHANKAR, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Sheelendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the petitioner's service dismissal. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing his dismissal from service and his conviction under Section 354 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[“IPC”, hereinafter], by the General Security Force Court, [“GSFC”, hereinafter] constituted under the Border Security Force Act, 1967[“BSF Act”, hereinafter].
3. In the year 2010, 70 Bn BSF was deployed along the Indo- Bangladesh border under Tripura Frontier BSF, and the petitioner was among those who were deployed. On 29th November 2020, "D‟ Coy 70 Bn was deployed at Border Out Post, [“BOP” hereinafter] Amzadnagar near Belonia, district South Tripura. On the same day at about 5:30 hrs, CT. V Velusami and CT. Santosh Singh Jat left the aforesaid BOP for Observation Point, [“OP” hereinafter] duty, at OP No. 3 along the border. At the same time, a dog patrolling team comprising of CT. Ashwani Kumar and CT. Rajesh Singh also left the BOP for patrolling along with border, who were later joined by the petitioner.
5. Apparently, when the petitioner reached near the rubber plantation, he spotted one Mr. Abdul Kalam hiding in the bushes.
Judicial review under Article 226 extends to the examination of the decision-making process in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the findings are rational and supported by credible evidence.
Consent obtained through deception, as in false promises of marriage, constitutes rape. The procedural integrity in disciplinary actions should not violate natural justice principles.
The sufficiency of evidence, compliance with procedural rules, and the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner were the central legal points established in the judgment.
The Summary Security Force Court proceedings were flawed due to significant delay and lack of adherence to natural justice, rendering the dismissal of the petitioner unlawful.
Point of Law : No limitation on the part of the High Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the High Court can definitely interfere with the findings of the GSFC if it finds tha....
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of The Constitution of India and the principle that the High Court shall not reappreciate the evidence or act as a ....
Punishments must be proportionate to the misconduct and not shock the conscience of the court.
The plea of guilt must be recorded in accordance with the procedural rules, and the absence of the accused's signature on the minutes of the proceedings can impact the credibility of the plea.
Termination of service is permissible under Section 10 of the Border Security Force Act when the trial is deemed impracticable or inexpedient, especially after non-confirmation of charges by the Conf....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
