The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order denying reinstatement to a BSF personnel. The court held that the petitioner waived his defense on blank signature grounds by not raising it earlier and rejected claims of procedural violation.
The petition was disposed of as meritless and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~3
% W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
MOHAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shrish Kumar Mishra and Ms. Deepika Mishra, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Sr. Panel Counsel.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 32065/19
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CM No. 35008/2019
Dismissed being meritless.
W.P.(C) No. 7729/19
Page 1 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
Page 2 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
character, and rewards etc and sentenced him to be dismissed from service on 29.08.2006.
Page 3 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
above order dated 13.12.2017, the statutory petition of the petitioner dated nil submitted against his trial by Summary Security Force Court and his petition dated 08.01.2018 were considered together by Director General, Border Security Force who, vide order dated 21.02.2018, rejected the petitions submitted by the petitioner being devoid of merit, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Page 4 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
force in it because a perusal of the letter dated 25 August, 2006-sent by the respondents to the petitioner, shows that the petitioner was directed to nominate one Officer/SO of 200 Bn BSF as his friend for his assistance during the trial. The respondents during the trial proceedings have examined 4 PWs who have supported the case of the department. The petitioner was also afforded opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. Further, the petitioner was also given an opportunity to examine the witnesses in his defence. During the trial the petitioner was also given an opportunity to make statement in reference to the charge, or any mitigation of punishment, but the petitioner requested for pardon, and to give him a chance to improve.
“3. As per records, the petitioners were heard jointly by their Commandant on a proper offence report where they were given opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses and to make statements in their defence. Further, during ROE opportunities under BSF Rules 48 (2) 48(3) and 48 (4) were given to the petitioners to cross examine prosecution witnesses, to make a statement under Rule 48(3) and to produce defence witnesses. The petitioners had made their written statements in which they requested to pardon their mistakes. The petitioners unequivocally pleaded Guilty to the charge during the trial and provisions of BSF Rule 142(2) were complied with by the Court in letter and spirit in reply to question in reference to the charge or in mitigation of punishment, the petitioners requested to pardon them and give one more chance to
Page 5 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
improve / serve . In the record of Evidence both the petitioners have confessed for having given a safe passage to smugglers to smuggle out sugar across the Border.
4. Const. Mohar Singh had put in 09 years, 5 months and 14 days service with 4 good entries to his credit but he was punished earlier also twice on 20.07.1999 for an offence under section 19 (b) for without sufficient.
5. The petitioner has compromised with his primary task of preventing smuggling on the international border, hence the Director General has rejected the petition being devoid of merit.” 14. Therefore, in our opinion, looking to the evidence and the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that there was violation of principles of the principles of natural justice.
Page 6 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
him that the Coy. Comdr. and Post Comdr insisted upon him to give in writing about his guilt but he told them that he did not commit any mistake intentionally. So, the petitioner is blowing hot and cold at every stage of the proceedings undertaken by him. In none of the proceedings filed by him prior to the filing of the present writ petition, he has stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers which were converted into his confessional statement of guilt on the basis of which his services has been terminated. This point has been raised by him for the first time in the present writ petition which is nothing but an afterthought. Had there been any truth in the petitioner‟s submission, we fail to understand why the petitioner did not raise it before the Calcutta High Court, and even in his statutory petition dated 08.01.2018.
Page 7 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
confessional statement, the respondents led in the oral evidence of other material witnesses. Moreover, a huge quantity of sugar i.e. 10.50 quintals was seized while in the process of being smuggled outside the Indian territory. The petitioner‟s conduct in facilitating the same stands established. This Court is not sitting as an appellate forum and it is not for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence. There is nothing on record to show that there has been miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Government of Andhra Pradesh versus Mohd. Nasrulla Khan, [2006 (2) SCC 373], in which the Supreme Court has held that the scope of judicial review is confined to correct the errors of law or procedural error if they result in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. The Apex Court in para 11 has held that :
“By now it is a well established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error if any resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority.”
Page 8 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.”
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
AUGUST 5, 2019
Sumant
Page 9 of 9
W.P.(C.) No. 7729/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence against the Director General BSF while deciding a writ petition.
Whether the petitioner's claim regarding signatures on blank papers and violation of natural justice is maintainable.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's statutory appeal should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Mohd. Nasrulla KhanRelied on¶51
Government of Andhra Pradesh versus Mohd. Nasrulla Khan, [2006 (2) SCC 373] · Who else cites this
S.R. Tewari vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶53
S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India, [2013 (7) SCALE 417]
Mohar Singh
Union of India
Rajnish Bhatnagar
Vipin Sanghi
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
