Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Deepak Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 February, 2022

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Navin Chawla

                              $~77
                              *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              +      W.P.(C) 2410/2022 & CM APPL.6921/2022
                                     DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH                                    ..... Petitioner
                                                        Through       Dr. SS Hooda and Mr. Aayushman
                                                                      Aeron, Advs.

                                                        versus

                                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            ..... Respondents
                                                   Through            Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with
                                                                      Ms. Dhwani Sharma, Advocate.
                                                                      Mr. Hemendra Singh, Law Officer.
                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
                                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                                                 ORDER

% 08.02.2022 The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed challenging t he order dat ed 21 s t September, 2021 issued by HQ Spl. DG, BSF, Eastern Command direct ing initiation of Record of Evidence (ROE) against the Petitioner and t he order dated 19th December, 2018 issued by the DG, BSF directing act ion against the Petitioner. Petitioner also challenges the Remarks dat ed 12 th Au gust, 2018 issued by the Inspector General, Ftr H.Q, SSB Siliguri m ade in t he Court of Inquiry [COI] for the incident dated 22nd February, 2018 an d 23 r d February, 2018 of the 63rd Bn. SSB Barasat (Kolkata).

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, who was inducted in the BSF, was sent on deputation to the SSB in the rank of Second-In-Command. He states that the IG, Ftr H.Q, SSB Siligu ri on 23 r d Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.02.2022 12:46:25 February, 2018 ordered a Staff Court of Inquiry [SCOI] to in vestigate in to various circumstances/role of Petitioner in an incident dated 22nd Febru ary, 2018 and on 11th July, 2018 an additional SCOI was ordered t o u ndertake further inquiry.

He states that during the SCOI and the Additional SCOI, the Petitioner had taken a categorical stand that the operation dated 22 nd February 2018 was conducted on the specific but verbal orders of IG, Ft r H.Q, SSB Siliguri. He contends that in violation of proprietary and the principles of natural justice, the IG, Ftr H.Q, SSB Siliguri became a judge in his own case and himself decided that he had not directed t he Pet itioner t o plan and execute the operation.

He states that subsequently, the Petitioner was repatriated to BSF an d the DIG (Confd.), HQ, DG BSF, New Delhi, issued the impugned letter dated 19th December 2018 directing initiation of action against the Petitioner.

He states that the Commandant, 123 Bn. BSF informed the DG, BSF that he had dismissed the charge against the Petitioner and also gave reasons in support thereof. He states that the commandant was apprised of the amendment in Rule 45B of the BSF Rules which envisages that when initiation of disciplinary action has been referred by a superior authority, the officer hearing the charge shall not dismiss the sam e wit hout reference t o such authority and subsequently, the IG, Ftr. HQ, BSF Meghalaya considered the reference under Rule 45B of the BSF Ru les, 1969 m ade by Commandant and passed an order recommending that the charge against the Petitioner ought to be dismissed and reference by the Commandant m ay be accepted.

He points out that the Commandant's reference and IG's recommendations were considered by th e Addl. DG, East ern Command, who vide the impugned order dated 21st September 2021, directed t hat t he Petitioner's case could not have been dismissed only on the basis of the officer's statement and that some corroborative evidence is requ ired as t h e case has been referred to BSF by SSB.

He also points out that vide the same order, a Recording of Eviden ce [ROE] has been ordered against the Petitioner and it is h is con t ention t hat the Addl. DG, Eastern Command is not competent t o issu e t he im pugned order as the amended Rule 45B mandates the case has to be referred to su ch superior authority which had initiated the disciplinary action, which in t he present case is the DG BSF.

Issue notice. Mr. Manish Mohan, Advocate accepts notice on beh alf of Respondents. He prays for some time to obtain instructions. Let a counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

List on 22nd September, 2022.

Till further orders, there shall be a stay of the operation an d effect of order dated 21st September, 2021 issued by HQ Spl. DG, BSF, Eastern Command directing initiation of ROE against the petitioner.

MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 8, 2022 AS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.02.2022 12:46:25