IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT APPEAL No. 2993 of 2025

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Versus

SATISH KUMAR

Appearance:

Shri Paveen Kumar Newaskar - Dy. S.G for the appellants/Union of India.

Shri Niraml Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER period, he preferred an application on 26.11.2016 along with medical certificate and the Pathology report, which has been received in the office of respondents on 28.11.2016. The appellant afforded several opportunities to the respondent/petitioner to join his duties and they waited for long Eight months of his arrival to join the duties, but the respondent/petitioner did not turn, therefore, the appellants conducted inquiry and ultimately, by the impugned order, the respondent/petitioner has been removed from service invoking Rule 17 and 20 of the ITBP Act Rules 1947. Thereafter, he preferred appeal against the said order, which was also dismissed.

Per: Justice Anil Verma

The appellants have preferred this intra Court appeal under Section 2

(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in W.P. No.27421/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner has been allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the disciplinary authority to conduct fresh inquiry after providing

adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/petitioner was

working as Constable (Barber) at 20th Battalion, Indo Tibbat Border Police Force (in short "ITBP') at Guwahati. He proceeded on sanctioned leave for the period from 09.10.2016 to 13.11.2016, however, while he was on leave, he fell ill on account of which, he could not resume his duties. After leave

3. Against the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the writ court challenging both the impugned orders (Annexures P/1 and P/2) and issuing direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. After hearing both the parties, the writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to conduct fresh inquiry against him after providing him sufficient opportunity of hearing. The appellant raised the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court before the writ Court but the same was not considered and by the impugned order, the learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant has preferred instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent/petitioner was remained absent from duties for more than 240 days without prior permission of the competent authority, therefore, the Court of inquiry has been instituted against the petitioner by the Commandant 20th Bn. ITBP and after giving so cause notice, which has also been published in the newspaper, the petitioner was declared absent and inquiry was instituted against him and after inquiry vide impugned order, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal agaisnt the order dated 14.07.2017 which was also time barred by more than two years and no application for condonation of delay has been filed before the appellate authority therefore, the appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal. The impugned order passed by the learned writ court is against the law and fact. The writ court has failed to consider the fact that the departmental appeal was barred by 815 days and the order in disciplinary inquiry was passed in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, therefore, the writ petition does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of M.P., Bench Gwalior and writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of beyond the territorial jurisdiction. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside