Dismissed

Amit Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC14 Oct 2024W.P.(C)/16837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and attachment order against the petitioner. The Court refused to adjudicate factual disputes regarding HRA admissibility, finding no merit in the plea of mala fide as an inquiry was already initiated against the complainant, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; pending application disposed of as infructuous.

Amit Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~22

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 14.10.2024

¶4

W.P.(C) 16837/2022 & CM APPL. 53317/2022 AMIT SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv. along with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Mr.Amit Dutta and Ms.Pinky Pawar, Advs. for UOI

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs:

¶11

“i) issue an appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the letter dated 07.06.2022 vide which respondents directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as well as attachment order dated 15.11.2022;

¶12

ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 vide which respondents initiated and conducted Staff Court of Inquiry against the petitioner as well as the findings of Staff Court of Inquiry held against the petitioner.”

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16837/2022 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 2.10.2024 18:14:14

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

Case of the petitioner

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department, that is, Border Security Force (in short, ‘BSF’) on 13.04.2016 from the National Technical Research Organisation (in short, ‘NTRO’). He reported to the 93^rd Battalion at Baikuntpur, Salaguda, Nagaland on 25.05.2016. On 22.05.2019, after completion of a tenure of almost 3 years, he was posted to the Frontier Headquarter BSF, Kashmir as a Deputy Commandant.

¶18

It is asserted that during his tenure in the 93^rd Battalion BSF, the petitioner found various irregularities committed by the respondent no.4, who was the Commandant of the 93^rd Battalion. On 04.07.2019, he filed a complaint before the Director General, BSF bringing to his notice the irregularities committed by the respondent no.4. Accordingly, on 23.07.2019, a Staff Court of Inquiry was initiated against the respondent no.4.

¶19

It is asserted that the respondent no.4, having been infuriated by the complaint of the petitioner and the inquiry against him being initiated, made a false complaint dated 24.09.2020 against the petitioner inter alia alleging therein that the petitioner had unauthorisedly claimed the House Rent Allowance (in short, ‘HRA’) between the period May, 2016 to May, 2019. The officials of the respondent, under the influence of the respondent no.4, ordered a Staff Court of Inquiry against the petitioner, vide Order dated 25.10.2021. Carrying forward the same with the mala fide intent of acting under the influence of the respondent no.4, vide the Impugned Order dated 07.06.2022, the respondents directed initiation of the disciplinary

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16837/2022 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 2.10.2024 18:14:14

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

proceedings against the petitioner as well as directed attachment of the petitioner on disciplinary grounds, vide Order dated 15.11.2022. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.

¶24

Submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire action of the respondent is under the influence of the respondent no.4, against whom the petitioner had made a complaint, and on which complaint, the Staff Court of Inquiry had been initiated against the respondent no.4.

¶26

He further submits that the petitioner was even otherwise entitled to claim the HRA for his period of stay in the 93^rd Battalion. He submits that the petitioner had stayed only for 147 days, in this entire period between May, 2016 and May, 2019, in a temporary shed, which was named as a Mess by the respondents. The actual Mess was inaugurated only sometime in 2019.

¶27

He submits that during his tenure in the 93^rd Battalion, there were audits which were conducted, however, did not report that the petitioner had unauthorisedly drawn the HRA.

¶28

He submits that the above would clearly show that the petitioner is being persecuted for having made a complaint against the respondent no.4 and not for any valid reason.

¶29

He submits that even assuming that the HRA was wrongly given to the petitioner for the relevant period, the blame of paying the same lies only on the respondents. The petitioner cannot be subjected

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16837/2022 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 2.10.2024 18:14:14

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

to a disciplinary inquiry for the amount wrongfully paid by the respondents to the petitioner.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, on his posting in the 93^rd Battalion, had, in fact, himself addressed a communication to the respondents for fixation of the pay of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules as are applicable. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be blamed in case it is later found that the HRA has been wrongly released to the petitioner.

¶35

Submissions of the learned counsel for respondents

¶36

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had been drawing the HRA which was not admissible. There were other benefits also which had been obtained by the petitioner in spite of him not being eligible for the same.

¶37

She submits that based on a report of the Staff Court of Inquiry dated 28.04.2022, directions were issued for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with the BSF Act and Rules. She submits that the present petition which seeks a restraint on the respondents from carrying out such departmental inquiry, cannot be entertained.

¶38

Analysis and findings

¶39

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶40

The Staff Court of Inquiry, vide its Opinion dated 28.04.2022, has issued the following directions:

¶41

“ i) Disciplinary action as per BSF Act &

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16837/2022 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 2.10.2024 18:14:14

¶44

Page 4 of 6

¶45

Rules be initiated against Shri Amit Sharma, DC (IRLA No. 10801833) of 93 Bn BSF (Now posted to HQ BSF Kashmir Ftr) for claiming unauthorized HRA from May’2016 to May’2019, while staying in Officer Mess (Annexe) of 93 Bn BSF.

¶46

ii) The CEA claims and TA/DA bill during course in TC&S Hazaribagh of the Officer be audited by 93 BN BSF duly constituted Audit Committee/BOO.”

¶47

Based thereon, Board of Officers, vide Order dated 15.06.2022, was appointed to carry out audit of CEA and TA/DA claims of the petitioner; the board proceedings were approved for a recovery of Rs.39,879/- against the petitioner.

¶48

This Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot enter into the disputed question of facts. The plea of the petitioner that the petitioner was not guilty of having wrongly drawn the HRA, therefore, cannot be adjudicated by this Court; this would be a matter to be considered in the disciplinary proceedings. We, at this stage, are refraining ourselves from making any comment on the other submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner for they may hamper or influence the inquiry one way or the other.

¶49

As far as the allegation of mala fide is concerned, it be only noted that on a complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent no.4, in fact, inquiry has been ordered against the respondent no.4 itself. Therefore, we do not prima facie find any merit in the said submission.

¶50

Accordingly, at this stage, we find no merit in the present

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16837/2022 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 2.10.2024 18:14:14

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

petition. The same is dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of as infructuous.

¶55

All contentions of the petitioner shall remain open in the inquiry that has been initiated against him by the respondents.

¶56

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶57

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶58

OCTOBER 14, 2024 /ns/ VS

¶59

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16837/2022 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 2.10.2024 18:14:14

¶62

Page 6 of 6

Amit Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robotech India Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Cms It Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Satish Sharma Vs MCD & Ors.

Mukesh and Ors. Vs Secreatry Labour Govt of India and Anr.

Fareeda Jalal Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Paras Lubricants Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Primatel Fibcom Ltd. Vs Gail (India) Limited

Sh. R.S. Meena Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sumer Singh Vs Union of India

Nikesh Valmik Wagh & Anr. Vs Union of India

Ex-Jwo Praveen Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jeewraj Singh Shekhawat Vs Union of India and Ors.

Fareeda Jalal Vs Union of India and Ors.

C. Chandrakumar Vs Border Roads Development Board and Ors.