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 &amp; 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXCHANDAN KUMAR SHARMA Through Mr.S.D.Mishra Advocate UNION OF INDIA Through Mr.Dilbag Singh Advocate Date of Decision: 24th February 2022 HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN J (Oral The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing W.P.(C)1061 2022 which had been dismissed in default and on account of Learned counsel for the Applicant Petitioner states that the counsel for the Petitioner was unwell and thus could not appear on the last date of hearing i.e. on 17th January 2022. He states that non appearance on the part of learned counsel for the Petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate Issue notice. Mr.Dilbag Singh Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Keeping in view of the averments in the application the same is allowed and the matter is restored to its original status Accordingly the application stands disposed of 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present petition is taken up for hearing It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27th September 2017 passed by DG BSF whereby the Petitioner’s dismissal order dated 04th March 2017 has been confirmed and the Petitioner has been dismissed from service. Petitioner also seeks re instatement with all consequential benefits 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 conducted the proceedings against the Petitioner on 06th September 2016 and vide order dated 04th March 2017 the Petitioner was found guilty of both the charges and consequently dismissed from service He states that the Petitioner preferred a petition dated 17th May 2017 under Section 117 of the BSF Act challenging his dismissal order dated 04th March 2017. He emphasises that Respondent vide the impugned order dated 27th September 2017 has rejected the petitioner s petition and confirmed the findings dated 04th March 2017 passed by THQ 85 BN BSF Malkangiri Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasises that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents 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 11. A perusal of the record reveals that the Petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges in the SSFC. Further 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 12. Consequently the defence of the petitioner that the Petitioner was disturbed on the date of incident due to his wife’s ill health ‘cuts no ice’ with In the counter affidavit it has also been stated that the Petitioner was in the habit of overstaying his leave 14. Hence considering the Petitioner’s past conduct and the offences committed by him this 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 15. Accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed MANMOHAN J NAVIN CHAWLA J FEBRUARY 24 2022 Page 