SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6452

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ
RAJNI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13284/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Mr. Satyaarth Sinha, Ms. Sharadha Mewati, Mr. Kumar Gaurav
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CGSPC, Mr. Rishav Kashyap, GP, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Mr. Amitabh Pandey, Mr. Aman Sinha

Show cause notices must consider the recipient's ability to respond, especially in cases of severe incapacity, ensuring fair administrative procedures.

Headnote:(A) BSF Rules, 1969 - Show Cause Notice - The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued on the basis of a medical report declaring her husband unfit for service due to severe health conditions. The court raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of issuing such a notice to an individual in a vegetative state and requested further clarification from the respondents regarding their intentions. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Legal Obligation - The responsibility to issue show cause notices must consider the health status of the individual involved, raising questions of fairness in administrative procedures. (Paras 2-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested a show cause notice addressed to her husband, who is incapacitated due to serious medical issues. Legal representation was made on his behalf due to his inability to respond. The notice implied that failure to respond would lead to an automatic adverse decision. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court:
The court expressed skepticism over the issuance of the notice, questioning whether the responsible authority fully understood the health implications of the recipient. The inconsistency in the procedure was highlighted, with a request for clarification from the respondents. (Paras 6-8)

Issues: The primary issue presented is the legality and ethicality of issuing a show cause notice to an individual unable to respond due to severe medical conditions. (Paras 2-5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for administrative decisions to account for the respondent's ability to contest, raising concerns about due process and fairness in handling such notices. (Paras 2-6)

Result: Notice issued to respondents regarding the show cause procedure, further proceedings stayed until clarification.

Table of Content
1. challenge to show cause notice based on husband's medical condition. (Para 1)
2. concerns over the notice's issuance to an incapacitated individual. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. skepticism about the authority's understanding of the health implications. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. issuance of notice based on procedural fairness. (Para 9 , 10)
5. staying further proceedings on the notice until clarification. (Para 12 , 13)

O R D E R

% 01.09.2025

1. This writ petition assails a show cause notice dated 5 August 2025 issued to Inspector (GD) Sunil Kumar Kakodia, the husband of the petitioner, by one VLK Vaiphei, Officiating Commandant, 25, Battalian, BSF, which reads as under:

“No.Estt/25Bn/Invalidpension/2025/16980 05Aug2025 No.10007814 Inspector(GD)

Sunil KumarKakodia

25BnBSF SHOWCAUSE NOTICE

1. It is to inform you that, you had appeared before Invalid Medical Board on 10.07.2025 at FHQ BSF Hospital-I, R K Puram W.P.(C)13284/2025 Page1of which is approved by the IG, (Med), FHQ BSF, R K Puram, New Delhi on 28.07.2025 and the Board after Medical Examination has opined that you are suffering from "Hypoxic Ischemic Eneephalopathy following Cardiac arrest of unkown cause in May 2018. Sequale of hypoxic ischemic brain insult in form of minimal conscious state with spastic quadriparesis and with Bladder with Bowel Incontinence" and is considered 'UNFIT' for further service in BSF with 90% (Ninety Percentage) disability and Medical Categoryis S1H1A1P5E1.

2. In view of above, Commandant 25 Bn BSF has agreed with the finding & opinion of Medical Board as well as IG (Director Medical), FHQ, it has been desired that you may be boarded out from the service on ground of physical unfitness under the provisionofRule25ofBSFRule,1969.

3. However, if you are not satisfied with the opinion of the Medical Board, you are at liberty to submit your representation/ appeal to the officer next superior in Command to the one who ordered the retirement i.e Inspector General, IG(HQ) FHQ BSF, New Delhi in your case (as per BSF manual Vol-IX, Medical Dte) within a period of 15 Days ” (Fifteen Days) from the date of receipt of this letter through you own unit Commandant/HOO (i.e

25BnBSF).

4. If no reply received within stipulated period, it would be presumed that you have nothing to say against the proposed action andex-partedecisionwill betakeninthematter.

5. Kindlyacknowledgethe receipt.

Sd/-

(VLKVaiphei),2IC OffgCommandant

25BnBSF”

2. We queried of Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned CGSPC, for the UOI as to how such a show cause notice could at all be issued to a person who was suffering from Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy following Cardiac arrest of unkown cause with hypoxic ischemic brain insult in form of minimal conscious state with spastic quadriparesis and with Bladder and Bowel Incontinence. Mr. Bhargava submits that the husband of his client is practically in a vegetative state, in a coma and W.P.(C)13284/2025 Page2of on ventilator support.

3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, submits, on instructions, that the show cause notice was issued in accordance with law and that in fact a response to the show cause notice has also been submitted, which is under consideration.

4. To this Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, points out that the response was submitted by the petitioner’s wife as the petitioner, in view of his condition, was in no position to respond to the show cause notice. He has taken us through the response submitted by the petitioner’s wife.

5. Strangely, the impugned show cause notice, even states in para 4 that if no reply is received to the show cause notice within the stipulate time, it would be presumed that Sunil Kumar – as we have pointed out, is in vegetative state and is in no position to respond to the show cause notice - has nothing to say against the proposed action and ex parte decision would be taken.

6. We are more concerned presently with the manner in which the show cause notice dated 5 August 2025 has come to be is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top