Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sukhdev Dub vs Union Of India And Another on 31 October, 2024
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
40
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 611/2021(O&M)
Sukhdev Dub .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Arsha Sharma, Adv.
vs
Union of India and another ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
31.10.2024 ORAL:
1. The wife of the petitioner had approached respondent No. 2 in respect of the certain grievances including solemnization of the alleged second marriage by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 took the cognizance of her grievance and passed order dated 14.01.2021 directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month to his wife. The petitioner assailed the said order through the medium of writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 380/2021 and this Court vide order dated 02.03.2021 directed the petitioner to continue to deposit the monthly maintenance, as directed by respondent No. 2, in the Registry of this Court. After the order dated 02.03.2021 was passed by this Court, the respondent No. 2 issued memorandum dated 18.03.2021 and simultaneously directed the petitioner to submit his written explanation in respect of his misconduct as mentioned in the memorandum.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the memorandum dated 18.03.2021 has approached this Court on the ground that the petitioner had exercised his 2 WP(C) No. 611/2021 right by approaching this Court against order dated 14.01.2021 issued by the respondent No. 2 but the respondent No. 2 just to harass the petitioner issued the memorandum impugned in this writ petition. In a nutshell, the case projected by the petitioner is that no law prohibits a litigant in availing the remedy before the judicial forum(s).
3. The respondent No. 2 has filed the response, thereby narrating the factual aspects of the case, which prompted the issuance of order dated 14.01.2021 which is the subject matter of WP(C) No. 380/2021. It is further stated that the petitioner without taking any prior permission/intimation from/to the Department of Justice has approached this Court, which is in violation of good order of force as per the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) Act and Rules and violation of Civil Classification Services (Conduct) Rules, which do not exempt a member of disciplined force.
4. Ms. Arsha Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is, in fact, being punished by the respondent No. 2 in availing the remedy available to the petitioner under the Constitution and as such, the memorandum issued by the respondent No. 2 directing the petitioner to show cause within a period of two days, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the respondents has submitted that the appropriate orders may be passed.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. The memorandum dated 18.03.2021 issued by the respondent No 2 is extracted as under:3
WP(C) No. 611/2021
Whereas, it is intimated that on order No. PF/CRC/CT/GD/2nd Bn/SSB/Pin/12/4192-93 dated 14.01.2021 was passed by the undersigned on the basis of Court of Inquiry to allow/pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 8000/- only (Rupees eight thousand) only/- on the monthly basis to Smt. Neeti Devi wife of Regt No.120981426 (UIN. II 300142) CT/GD Sukhdev Dub from his salary from the salary month of Jan *2021 till finalization of the case pending in Court.
2. And whereas, it has come to the notice to the undersigned through Shri Sachin Gupta, Advocate learned counsel High Court Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu vide their letter dated 07.03.2021 alongwith copy of interim order passed on 02.03.2021 in the WP(C) No. 380 of 2021 titled Sukhdev Dub vs. UOI and others that Regt. No.120981426(UTN.11300142) CT/GD Sukhdev Dub of 2nd Bn SSB Pattan has filed a Writ Petition against the order No. nd PF/CRC/CT/GD/2 /Bn/Ptn/12/891-98 dated 14.01.2021. The next date of hearing on the instant matter has been listed on 23.04.2021. And accordingly original copy of interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu has also been received in this office vide Dy. No. 2063 dated 15.03.2021.
3. And whereas, on conclusion of above facts by the undersigned, it has been found that Regt. No. 120981426 (UIN.
11300142) CT/GD Sukhdev Dub has directly approached without taking any prior permission/intimation from the department for justice before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu wing which is violation of good order of force as per SSB Act and Rules and also violation of CCS (Conduct)Rules which is not expected from a member of discipline force as well as employee of Central Government.
4. Now therefore, Regt. No. I2098I426 (UIN.11300142) CT(GD) Sukhdev Dub is hereby directed to submit his written explanation of his misconduct narrated above within 02 days after receiving of above communication without fail as to why he failed to take prior permission/intimation on the above to department before approaching for justice directly in the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu for taking further necessary action at this end."
8. Normally this Court would not have shown indulgence as the petitioner has only been directed to submit his written explanation in respect of his alleged misconduct as mentioned in the memorandum, but in view of the 4 WP(C) No. 611/2021 peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as mere approaching the Court by an employee for redressal of his grievance cannot be termed as misconduct, this Court has shown indulgence.
9. Mere perusal of the memorandum would reveal that the same has been issued only on the ground that the petitioner without taking any prior permission from the Department of Justice has approached this Court which is alleged to be in violation of good order of force as per SSB Act and Rules.
10. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate before this Court existence of any law/rule which prohibits the member of SSB in availing the constitutional remedies provided under the Constitution.
11. There is a substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being punished by the respondent No. 2 as he had impugned order dated 14.01.2021 issued by the respondent No. 2 before this Court in WP(C) No. 380/2021.
12. In terms of Article 226 of the Constitution, it is the prerogative of the High Court to issue various writs for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights or any other purpose. The respondent No. 2 cannot be heard to say that without seeking prior permission of the Department of Justice, the petitioner has availed the constitutional remedy as provided by the Constitution, which amounts to misconduct. Though this is a fit case to proceed against the respondent No. 2, but taking lenient view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of this writ petition by quashing the 5 WP(C) No. 611/2021 memorandum dated 18.03.2021 issued by the respondent No. 2 with the note of caution to the respondent No. 2.
13. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 31.10.2024 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Rakesh Kumar 2024.11.06 20:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document