Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
K.I.P. Singh vs Union Of India on 9 May, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5534/2019
K.I.P. Singh S/o Shri Sukhdev Singh, Aged About 52 Years,
Resident Of House No. 358, Home Land City, Tehsil And District
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Home
Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Border Security Force, Block 10, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. Special Director General (Western Command), Border
Security Force, Chandigarh.
4. Sh. K J S Bains, Chief Law Officer / Deputy Inspector
General, Border Security Force, 10 CGO Complex, New
Delhi.
5. Inspector General (Personnel), Border Security Force, 10
Cgo Complex, New Delhi.
6. Sh K K Sharma, Ex - DG, BSF (To Be Served Through DG,
BSF).
7. Sh S S Tomar, Ex - ADG, BSF (To Be Served Through DG,
BSF).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.I.P.Singh, petitioner in person
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 09/05/2019 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"a. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, a writ in nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other suitable writ, be issued and the entire record pertaining to the moral turpitude, past performance and all other connected (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:29:47 AM) (2 of 6) [CW-5534/2019] documents pertained to the case of the petitioner may kindly be summoned and reviewed judiciously.
b. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 1 i.e. M.HA. may kindly be directed to issue an enquiry in the matter to find out the circumstances under which false allegations of moral turpitude without any cogent evidence, past performance not good were raised against petitioner and for causing mental stress and strain and for creating the situation under which petitioner left no choice except to put up his paper for VRS.
c. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may also kindly be directed to the respondent no. 1 to provide all documents to petitioner and to fix responsibility and initiate action regarding the colourable exercise of power and intentional extraneous considerations by all the respondents/ private respondents resulting into spoiling the career progression of the petitioner having Outstanding/Very Good record and for tarnishing his reputation and character.
d. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 1 i.e. M H.A. be directed to place the copy of inquiry after its completion before Hon'ble court for final decision.
e. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may also kindly be directed to quash the impugned speaking order dated 10.03.2017 (annexure P-3) and VRS order dated 6/9/17 (annexure P-
4) after the inquiry, if finds injustice has been caused to the petitioner towards permanent absorption in the law directorate which has been rejected in unjust, unfair and illegal manner.
f. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 50 lakhs or more, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the present case, for assassinating petitioner character, willfully damaged his career, cut short his career resultantly petitioner has to quit his job prematurely and be recovered from the pocket of respondents 4, 6, 7 and other officials responsible for the same, if found injustice has been caused to the petitioner.
g. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
h. Costs of the petition may also pleased be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:29:47 AM)
(3 of 6) [CW-5534/2019] It is inter alia claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commandant in BSF in the year 1993, the petitioner served in the legal branch of BSF for 17-18 years, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Indo Tibetan Border Police Force as Deputy Judge Advocate General.
On 20/9/2010 the post of Commandant Law was advertised by BSF on the basis of deputation/absorption/re-employment, the petitioner applied and was selected on deputation and joined Jammu Frontier on 11/4/2011. The petitioner was granted extension on deputation from time to time and it is alleged that in 2014 the case of the petitioner for absorption was rejected.
The petitioner filed writ petition no. 578/2014 before Jammu & Kashmir High Court which petition was disposed of on 14/2/2017 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for permanent absorption by way of speaking order. By order dated 10/3/2017, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Whereafter on 15/3/2017 the petitioner gave his application for voluntary retirement, and whereafter a representation was given seeking reconsideration of order dated 10/3/2017, which was also rejected.
The petitioner filed CWP No.7266/17 before Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was disposed of with the direction to approach Delhi High Court. The petitioner filed writ petition No.3795/17 before Delhi High Court.
Subsequent thereto the VRS applied for by the petitioner was accepted w.e.f. 6/9/2017. The petitioner claims to have issued a notice dated 1/9/2017 seeking compensation of Rs.50 lakh for (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:29:47 AM) (4 of 6) [CW-5534/2019] causing damage to his career, character and reputation which was also rejected by communication dated 27/7/18 (Annex.P/7).
It is submitted by the petitioner, who has appeared in person, that the petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to restore his reputation and seek compensation from the respondents for damaging the character and career of the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and have produced the material available on record.
In one of the prayers i.e. (e) made supra, the petitioner has sought quashing of the speaking order dated 10/3/2017 (Annex.P/3) and VRS order dated 6/9/2017 (Annex.P/4). A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition indicates that qua the order (Annex.P/3) the petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court. The order passed on the writ petition filed by the petitioner dated 27/8/18 by Division Bench of Delhi High Court reads as under:
"ORDER 27.08.2018
1. Learned counsels for the parties state that there has been a subsequent development in the matter inasmuch as the petitioner has taken voluntarily retirement from the service on 06.09.2017.
2. In view of the aforesaid developments, we do not see any reason to continue with the present petition. The petition disposed of."
A perusal of the above order would indicate that as the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement from service on 6/9/2017, the Division Bench did not see any reason to continue with the petition and disposed of the same. (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:29:47 AM)
(5 of 6) [CW-5534/2019] Once the challenge was laid to the order dated 10/3/2017 by filing writ petition before the Delhi High Court and the writ petition was disposed of on account of subsequent development, wherein, the petitioner did not make any submission seeking to persist with his reliefs as claimed in the writ petition, and no liberty was sought/granted with regard to challenge laid to the order in any manner, the filing of the subsequent writ petition for the same relief, on its face is not maintainable.
So far as the challenge laid to the order of voluntary retirement dated 6/9/2017 (Annex.P/4) granted to the petitioner is concerned, no part of cause of action qua the said order has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the order was passed at Delhi and was served on the petitioner while working as Second-in-Command Officer, 2, Battalion BSF, C A Wala (Punjab). The submission made that as the petitioner is resident of Sriganganagar, he can maintain the petition qua the said order is baseless as the mere fact of petitioner's residence cannot confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court.
The above aspect is besides the fact that the challenge has been laid after passage of two years from the passing of order dated 6/9/2017 and after the petitioner has accepted/agreed on the same.
So far as the other claims made by the petitioner regarding restoration of his pride and claim made for damages to the tune of Rs.50 lakh is concerned, for the said purpose, the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked and for the said purpose the petitioner shall have to (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:29:47 AM) (6 of 6) [CW-5534/2019] lead evidence, which essentially is not possible while exercising writ jurisdiction.
In view of the above fact situation, no case is made out by the petitioner for entertaining the present writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in respect of his reliefs qua restoration of his pride and/or claim of damages.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 57-baweja/-
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:29:47 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)