A dismissed BSF constable challenged his termination order passed at Kolkata, invoking Delhi High Court jurisdiction on the ground that the Court of Inquiry was conducted at Delhi. The court held the major cause of action arose at Kolkata and invoked forum non conveniens.
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.
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 07.01.2025
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.S. Pandey & Mr.Roshan Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondents Through: Ms.Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Ms.Usha Jamnal & Ms.Harshita Chaturvedi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
“(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records including the Court of Inquiry which was finalized illegally and used against the Petitioner to pass Impugned Order dated 02.12.2021 vide which Petitioner was dismissed from service and the records based on which Impugned Orders was passed rejecting his representation against such order of termination and thereafter quash all such orders including the Court of Inquiry.
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus further, by directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to the issuance of the Writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 47/2025 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.01.2025 19:04:11
Page 1 of 4
Respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin services with all consequential benefits”
“3. Under the provision of Rule 17 of the BSF Rules-1969, No 160801020 Const (Crew) Deepak Kumar Yadav of Water Wing, BSF, Rajarhat was given an opportunity to show Cause vide this HQ Letter No. WW/Estt/5797 /2021/3369 dated 23.06.2021 against his proposed termination from service His reply to the show cause notice dated 04.10.2021 has been examined by the undersigned and I am not satisfied with the explanation offered by him and consider his further retention in the force to be undesirable. Hence in exercise of the powers vested upon me under section 11(2) of the BSF Act, 1968, No 160801020 CT(Crew) Deepak Kumar Yadav of Water Wing BSF Rajarhat is hereby dismissed from the service under Rule 17 of the BSF Rules, 1969 w.e.f. 02 Dec 2021 (AN).”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 47/2025 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.01.2025 19:04:11
Page 2 of 4
Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan), nor the Mechanised Fishing Boat (ref. No 0031 of 22/12/14) was issued to him by Dhana Laxmi Water Wing Mechanised Fishing Boat, Chinnamavari Street, Visakhapatnam, basis whereof the petitioner had obtained appointment in the BSF, this Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
“19. That the petitioner have the cause of action to approach this Hon'ble Court because he not only the Inquiry was finalized in Delhi but even the received such decision to terminate him was issued from Delhi though the orders of dismissal was passed orders in Delhi but even the entire process of selection has been carried out in Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner have approached this Hon'ble Court by way of present Writ Petition.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 47/2025 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.01.2025 19:04:11
Page 3 of 4
conveniens shall apply.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 7, 2025 /rv/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 47/2025
Page 4 of 4
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.01.2025 19:04:11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction over a writ petition challenging a dismissal order passed at Kolkata where the Court of Inquiry was held at Delhi.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ex Const Crew Deepak Kumar Yadav
Union of India & Ors.
Navin Chawla
Shalinder Kaur
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
