0

Violating the order and discipline of the force and using threatening language with superior officer is not admissible : High Court of Delhi

Counsel for the Petitioner preferred restoration of the petition dated 17th May 2017 under Section 117 of the BSF Act, challenging his dismissal order dated 04th March 2017. Considering the Petitioner’s past conduct and the offences committed by him the petition is dismissed by the High Court of Delhi through the learned HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA in the case of EX (CON) CHANDAN KUMAR SHARMA vs Union of India (W.P.(C) 1061/2020) on 24 of February, 2022.

Facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed present application seeking restoration of W.P.(C)1061/2022, which had been dismissed in default and on account of non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the counsel  was unwell and thus could not appear on the last date of hearing i.e. on 17th January, 2022 and it was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that two charges were framed against the Petitioner as per the charge sheet dated 12th May 2016 i.e. using threatening language with his superior officer and violating the good order and discipline of the force. He states that SSFC (Summary Security Force Court) conducted the proceedings against the Petitioner and was found guilty of both the charges and consequently dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasises that the Petitioner has no criminal records and since the Petitioner was the best cadet of his unit, many persons are inimical to him. He also states that at the time of incident, the Petitioner was slightly disturbed as his wife was unwell.

A perusal of the record reveals that the Petitioner was a habitual offender who had been punished seven times in the past and given warning twice for using threatening and insubordinate language with his superiors. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that the Petitioner was in the habit of overstaying his leave.

After looking the Petitioner’s past conduct and the offences committed by him, the honourable  Court  is of the view that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the offences and calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

Click here to read the Judgement

Judgment reviewed by- Amit Singh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat