- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 4 April 2013
- Bench
- S. Ravindra Bhat, Valmiki J.Mehta
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 6183/2002
Judgment
order as to costs.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. APRIL 04, 2013
Case details
Parties and counsel
Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on: 04.04.2013 + WP(C) No.6183/2002 RAVINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Shri Arun Bhardwaj & Shri N.D. Kaushik, Advocates. Versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj with Shri S.P. Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges his dismissal from the Indo Tibetan Border Police, ("ITBP) dated 5-5-2001, as illegal and disproportionate. 2. The Petitioner joined ITPB as Constable(GD) on 01/04/1994. On 26/12/1999 he was issued a movement order to proceed to ITBP Academy, Mussoorie to attend the Commando course starting on 3/1/2000. On 27/12/2999 the Petitioner, along with another constable (GD), Mahender Singh (Escort) left for the course, with arms/ammunition and was given departure to TC Chandigarh with the direction to leave TC Chandigarh to Page 2 ITBP Academy on 30/12/1999. On 29/12/1999 the Petitioner left for his hometown along with arms/ammunition. On 2/1/2000 he left his home to report to the ITBP Academy, Mussoorie. He boarded the bus from Meerut and reached the ITBP Academy the same day but his 9mm pistol, BUT, body, magazine, cleaning rod and pistol pouch were missing upon his reaching the destination. The Petitioner again left for his house. On 4/1/2000 the Petitioner reported back to the ITBP Academy. On 5/1/2000 he informed the CHM (Commando Course) and also to the Commandant (CW), ITBP Academy Mussoorie about loss of arms and ammunition. The same day the petitioner went along with Adjutant of Academy to PS Mussoorie and lodged an FIR regarding loss of pistol. 3. On 6/1/2000 the Petitioner was placed under suspension; disciplinary proceedings were ordered against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the statements of Constable Ravinder Singh and Constable Mahender Singh were recorded on 07-01-2000. The E.O. examined the delinquent person and submitted his findings/report for further necessary action. The statements of two witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded on 19/12/2000. On 20/12/2000 the statement of PW-3 was recorded. On 21/12/2000 the statement of PW-5 and PW-6 were recorded. On 22/12/2000 the statement of Petitioner was recorded. ITPB directed on 1/5/2001 that a Summary Force Court to be held on 04/05/2001 to try the Petitioner under Sections 35(b), 43 & 21 (d) of ITBP Act, 1992 for the misconduct alleged. On 05/05/2001 the punishment order of removal from services was passed by the Commandant Second Battalion ITBP. The petitioner was aggrieved, and preferred an appeal to the Director General; this was however rejected on 24th August, 2001. On 19/09/2001 the Petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Page 3 Director General, ITBP against the orders passed by the Commandant and the DIG, imposing the penalty of removal from services and rejection of his appeal. No order was passed by the Directorate General, ITBP on the revision petition even after the lapse of six months. Consequently the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. The relevant provisions invoked by the ITBP under the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992, ("the Act") in the present case are extracted below: "21. Absence without leave.-Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,--- (a) absents himself without leave; or (b) without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him; or (c) being on leave of absence and having received information from the appropriate authority that any battalion or part thereof or any other unit of the Force, to which he belongs, has been, ordered. on active duty, fails, without sufficient cause, to rejoin without delay; or . (d) without sufficient cause fails to appear at the time fixed at the parade or place appointed for exercise or duty; or (e) when on parade, or o
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.