A petition seeking reinstatement and mandamus against the Sashastra Seema Bal was dismissed. The High Court found the petitioner guilty of intentionally withholding evidence regarding his medical treatment for over ten years, rendering his claim of illness invalid.
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.
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 4th November, 2020
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Monika Arora, Mr. Gaurav Gaur, Advocates for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
% RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
C.M. Appln. No.27816/2020 (for exemption from filing certified copy, dim copy, typed and legible copies of the annexures)
W.P. (C) 8637/2020
Page 1 of 7
W.P. (C) 8637/2020
petitioner and seeks mandamus to the respondents SSB to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
Page 2 of 7
W.P. (C) 8637/2020
the respondents SSB sent Civil Police to apprehend the petitioner which found the petitioner to be bed ridden; (viii) the respondents SSB constituted a Court of Enquiry and which Court of Enquiry on 15th September, 2010 declared the petitioner a ‘deserter’; (ix) however the petitioner applied to rejoin and was permitted to rejoin but was again detailed for mule duty; (x) the petitioner on 6th December, 2010 under compulsion resigned and which resignation was accepted on 20th December, 2010; (xi) till the year 2014, the petitioner was under treatment for the allergy developed by him because of his being detailed to handle mules; (xii) the petitioner in the year 2005 made queries under the Right to Information Act, 2015 but continued to remain depressed; (xiii) the petitioner on 21st November, 2017 approached the Central Information Commission (CIC); (xiv) the petitioner on 10th July, 2020 applied to the respondents SSB for reinstatement and which application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 14th October, 2020 only for the reason of delay; and, (xv) the petition is not accompanied with a single document of the illness/depression claimed by the petitioner.
Page 3 of 7
W.P. (C) 8637/2020
Page 4 of 7
W.P. (C) 8637/2020
W.P. (C) 8637/2020
Page 5 of 7
and on 7th December, 2010 his resignation was accepted by the Commandant on 8th December, 2010; (xii) an order of acceptance of resignation w.e.f. 20th December, 2010 was issued; (xiii) a Memo was served on the petitioner to deposit Rs.55,218/- towards recovery of 3 months pay and allowances; (xiv) thereafter the name of the petitioner was stuck off after necessary clearance vide Office Order ending 20th December, 2010; and, (xv) the resignation letter of the petitioner is written in hand and also states domestic problems for the resignation.
Page 6 of 7
W.P. (C) 8637/2020
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE)
ASHA MENON (JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 04, 2020 pkb
W.P. (C) 8637/2020
Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be reinstated in service after a delay of over ten years in approaching the court.
Whether the petitioner's claim of illness and depression can validate the excessive delay in filing the petition.
Whether the respondents' acceptance of the petitioner's resignation was lawful given the circumstances of his absence.
MANISH TYAGI
UNION OF INDIA
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ASHA MENON
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
