$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 2488/2026 & CM APPL. 12078/2026 SANJEEV KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, SPC, Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, GP, Mr. Devendra Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 12078/2026 (for exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2488/2026

1. The present writ petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the dismissal order dated 23.07.2022 passed by commandant 40^th battalion, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force [‘ITBP’] and statutory appeal order dated 15.11.2023 passed by Director General ITBP through DIG(Estt.) ITPB headquarter [‘impugned orders’].

2. The facts relevant to the present petition, as pleaded are: -

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force on 29.07.2012. In the year 2015, the petitioner developed a serious psychiatric illness while in service. He was treated by ITBP psychiatrists and other government institutions. The petitioner was repeatedly placed in low medical category owing to his mental illness and last reported on duty on 26.11.2021.

2.2 The respondents initiated a Court of Inquiry (‘COI’) on 14.01.2022 for alleged unauthorized absence of the petitioner since 27.11.2021 and declared him ‘deserter’ vide order dated 15.02.2022.

2.3 Subsequently, following the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the ITBP Rules vide order dated 23.07.2022, the petitioner was dismissed from service, w.e.f. 26.11.2021 in exercise of powers under Rule 17 of the ITBP Rules.

2.4 A statutory appeal dated 09.09.2022 was filed by petitioner’s wife, but the same was not decided. After directions from the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 11217/2023 to decide the appeal in a time-bound manner, the appellate authority has rejected it by order dated 15.11.2023 and upheld the order of dismissal.

2.5 By way of this petition, the petitioner has impugned the the orders dated 23.07.2022 and 15.11.2023.

3. The main ground raised by the petitioner for challenging the impugned orders of dismissal are that the petitioner’s absence was involuntary and solely attributable to clinically diagnosed psychiatric illness; therefore, it could not amount to misconduct or desertion. It is averred that the respondents wrongly invoked procedure of Rule 20 (misconduct) of the ITBP Rules instead of proceeding under Section 21 of the ITBP Act, which mandates trial by a Force Court for absence without leave, rendering the orders of dismissal without jurisdiction.

3.1. It is also stated that the dismissal proceedings held under Rule 20 were conducted ex parte. It is stated that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate, ignoring his 9+ years of clean service, absence of moral turpitude, and the availability of less drastic alternatives such as medical invalidation or sheltered posting. It is stated that the appellate authority failed to consider medical records and passed a non-speaking, mechanical order.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the impugned orders along with annexures filed with the petition.

5. The scope of interference in a writ of certiorari against the impugned orders is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, patent errors of law apparent on the face of the record, failure to exercise jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or violations of the principles of natural justice, as held in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan¹. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory in nature and does not confer upon this Court the power to act as an appellate authority by re-appreciating evidence or disturbing findings of fact recorded in the impugned orders.

6. The impugned order dated 23.07.20