Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUMIT SANGWAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 06.02.2022 passed by the respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with immediate effect.
2. The petitioner further prays for directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service with effect from 06.02.2022, and grant him all service benefits from the said date, including seniority, rank, pay, arrears etc. with interest @ 18% p.a.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The petitioner joined the Border Security Force (BSF) as an Assistant Commandant (AC) (Direct Entry) on 19.11.2012, whereafter he was posted to the 145th Bn.
4. In terms of the Order dated 26.02.2016 issued by the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), a Board of Officers (BOO) was detailed to conduct a surprise check of the entire troops deployed at the BOP Srimantapur to verify and look into the alleged smuggling activities taking place in the area.
5. In furtherance of the same, on the morning of 27.02.2016, Sh. Ganesh Kumar, who was the Presiding Officer of the BOO, along with the other team members of the search party came to the BOP Srimantapur and started the search operation. During th
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....
Punishments must be proportionate to the misconduct and not shock the conscience of the court.
The principle of double jeopardy and the authority of the Confirming Authority to confirm findings and sentences under the Army Act.
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.
Dismissal without a formal inquiry under the BSF Act is justified if it's found impracticable due to security concerns. Authority must record reasons, but discretion remains with the competent author....
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 ....
The decision to dismiss an individual from service without a departmental inquiry must be based on reasonable grounds, especially when national security implications are involved.
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.
Confirming authority must provide clear justifications for disagreeing with Security Force Court findings and follow principles of natural justice in disciplinary actions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of jurisdiction of the DIG, BSF to alter the charge and direct retrial of the appellant, as well as the violation of principles of natural....
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
