Sandeep Shukla Vs Union of India and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Sandeep Shukla Vs Union of India and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the dismissal order is quashed and set aside; petitioner to be reinstated in service w.e.f. the date of dismissal with continuity of service, fixation of pay and seniority; however, no back wages for the period not served, per the principle of “no work, no pay”.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's dismissal from service violates the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the BSF Act and Rules, as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

The dismissal of the petitioner is stigmatic in nature, as opposed to a simpliciter dismissal, thereby necessitating a fair opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is undertaken against him.

Ratio / Principle

Although the SCN was issued on 07.10.2022, it was processed by the Pradhan Lipik (Head Clerk) on 01.12.2022 and served on the petitioner only on 17.12.2022, i.e., well after the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.11.2022.

Key takeaways

Audi alteram partem is an essential facet of a fair and just hearing imbibed in all state actions involving employment; prior notice, once duly served, creates a presumption of a reasonable and adequate opportunity to participate.obiter¶26
The petitioner was neither served the SCN before his dismissal nor afforded an opportunity to present an effective defence to justify his overstayed leave; nothing on record suggests he was afforded due opportunity to take part in the COI proceedings, making the action arbitrary and squarely inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 13837/2023 (decided 08.12.2025; judgment by Om Prakash Shukla, J.; coram C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.): A BSF Constable (General Duty), dismissed w.e.f. 22.11.2022 under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 for overstaying leave from 02.08.2022, following a Court of Inquiry under Section 62 of the BSF Act and a Show Cause Notice under Rule 22(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969, succeeded in his writ petition under Article 226. The Court found that although the SCN was issued on 07.10.2022, it was processed on 01.12.2022 and served only on 17.12.2022 — after the dismissal — and that the petitioner was neither served the SCN before dismissal nor permitted to participate in the COI. Characterising the dismissal as stigmatic, the Court held it arbitrary, in stark violation of natural justice and in breach of Rule 22 of the BSF Rules; the respondents' reliance on prior overstay and punishments was held inconsequential as the dismissal was not founded thereon. Petition allowed; dismissal quashed; reinstatement w.e.f. date of dismissal with continuity of service, pay fixation and seniority, but no back wages under the “no work, no pay” principle.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal of the petitioner from service w.e.f. 22.11.2022 for overstaying leave from 02.08.2022 without sufficient cause, ordered by the Commandant, 193 Bn BSF under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act after treating the petitioner as a “deserter” whose trial was impracticable.¶12
Commandant, 193 Bn BSF · 22.11.2022
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed as Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force on 03.04.2012.¶17
Prior proceeding
Sanctioned leave granted on 17.07.2022 for the period 18.07.2022 to 01.08.2022.¶18
Prior proceeding
Petitioner admittedly did not resume duty and overstayed leave from 02.08.2022 to 22.11.2022 due to illness (claimed typhoid with bed rest).¶19
Prior proceeding
Registered communications dated 08.08.2022, 14.08.2022 and 23.08.2022 directing the petitioner to report for duty forthwith, failing which disciplinary action under the BSF Act, 1968 was intimated.¶28
Prior proceeding
Court of Inquiry convened on 08.09.2022 under Section 62 of the BSF Act into the circumstances of the overstay; petitioner concluded to have overstayed without sufficient cause.¶29
Prior proceeding
Upon being deemed a “deserter”, the Commandant of 193 Bn BSF issued an “apprehension roll” to the Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur; the petitioner could not be apprehended and his trial was considered impracticable.¶30
Prior proceeding
Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2022 issued as per Rule 22(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969 proposing dismissal from service; per the record it was processed on 01.12.2022 and served on the petitioner only on 17.12.2022.¶31
Prior proceeding
Declared medically fit on 24.11.2022, the petitioner reported to resume duties on 26.11.2022 but was denied entry and informed his services stood dismissed w.e.f. 22.11.2022.¶42
Prior proceeding
Handwritten representation dated 15.12.2022 and further representation dated 06.03.2023 to the Inspector General, BSF, both rejected vide communication dated 02.06.2023 on the ground of failure to satisfactorily explain 113 days of non-appearance.¶48