Dismissed¶¶38

Sanjay Khali v. Union of India and Others

Delhi HC9 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/3157/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ITBP medical boarding out; Alcohol Dependent Syndrome (ADS); mental and behavioral disorder due to use of alcohol; Medical Board declared unfit; Rule 26(3), 26(4), 26(5) ITBP Rules 1994; representation and review Medical Board; Appellate Board appeal; Invalidation Medical Board; Show Cause Notice No. 8027 dated 22.12.2025; earlier W.P.(C) 553/2026 disposed 20.01.2026; 30-day window, no coercive action; Article 226 certiorari; High Court of Delhi; petition dismissed, pending application closed.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order (boarding out of 20.02.2026) so as to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; accordingly the Petition is dismissed and the pending application closed. ¶¶37

Sanjay Khali Vs Union of India and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~8

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3157/2026 and CM APPL. 15224/2026 SANJAY KHALI .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Raghunath Pathak, Mr. Shivam, Mr. Shweta Priya, Mr. Kailash Jha, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, GP with Mr. Devender Singh, JAG ITBP.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R % 09.04.2026

¶10

Through the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.02.2026 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Respondent/Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (‘ITBP’), whereby the Petitioner has been medically boarded out of service.

¶11

A perusal of the record reflects that the Petitioner has been boarded out of service from ITBP based on the opinion of the Medical Board which said that the Petitioner suffered from Alcohol Dependent Syndrome (‘ADS’). The Medical Board also declared the Petitioner unfit for further service on account of mental and behavioral disorder due to use of alcohol.

¶12

Previously also, when the Medical Board gave an opinion, the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 12:09:47

¶15

Petitioner filed W.P.(C) 553/2026 captioned Sanjay Khali v. Union of India and Others before this Court, which was disposed of on 20.01.2026 and the following order was passed:

¶16

“1. This petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶17

“a) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or orders quashing the Show Cause Notice bearing Number 8027 dated 22.12.2025 issued by the Commandant, 21st Battalion I.T.B.P as arbitrary, illegal and issued during the pendency of the matter before this Hon'ble High Court.

¶18

b) Transfer the petitioner from 21st Battalion I.T.B.P, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir to some other battalion so that the petitioner is not mentally harassed by the senior officers of 21st battalion.

¶19

c) Pass any such further order/order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”

¶20

2. In effect, the challenge of the petitioner is to the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the respondents. The order dated 22.12.2025 being the show cause notice, paragraph no.5 thereof, inter alia, reads as under:-

¶21

अतः भा . तत . सी . पु . बल तियमावली 1994 के तियम 26 (3) में तितित प्रावधाि ोंके अन्तगगत आपक इस ि तिस केमाध्यम सेअवगत कराया जातािै , तक अगर आपउक्तइन्वेतलडेशि मेतडकलब डगकेतिर्गयसेसिमत / सोंतुष्टििीोंिै , त इसि तिसकेजारीि िेकीतततिसे 30 तिि केअन्दरअपिीअपीलकरसकतेिै , तजसमेंतितकत्साब डगद्वाराव्यक्तरायमेंतिर्गयकी त्रुतिय ोंका प्रिम दृष्टया साक्ष्यभीि िािातिए।ऐसासाक्ष्यसरकारीतितकत्सक ज तक तसतवल सजगिकेपिसेिीिेकाििीोंि द्वारातियाजािािातिएऔरइसमेंयितवतशष्टउल्लेखि िा िातिएतकउन्ह िेअपिामतप्रकिकरिेसेपूवगतितकत्सीयब डगकेतिर्गयक ध्यािमेंरखािै। यति आपकेद्वारा अपिीअपील उक्तअवतध केअन्दर प्रस्ु त ििीोंकीजातीिै , त यि माि तलया जायेगा तक आपइन्वेतलडेशि मेतडकल ब डग (INVALIDATION MEDICAL BOARD) केतिर्गयसेसिमतिैऔरआपक भा . तत . सी . पु . बलसेकायगमुक्तकरतियाजाएगा।

¶22

3. On the last date of hearing, the submission on behalf of the petitioner was that the petitioner has not received the opinion given by the Invalidation Medical Board (IMB), because of which, the petitioner is unable to submit the appeal before the Appellate Board.

¶23

4. Today, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us the proceedings of IMB and a copy thereof has been given to Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. At this stage, Mr Nandrajog states that as the petitioner has received the copy of the IMB today, the petitioner shall proceed in accordance with para no.5 of the show cause notice, as reproduced above. Hence, 30 days must be counted from today and also till such time the appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority, the respondents should not take any coercive action.

¶24

5. Having noted the above submissions, we agree with the submissions made by Mr. Nandrajog. We grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, as is stated in paragraph no.5 of the above mentioned show

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 12:09:47

¶26

cause notice.

¶27

6. It is made clear that the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner for the next 30 days, commencing from today. It goes without saying that on filing of such appeal before the Appellate Board, the Appellate Board shall consider the appeal in accordance with law/ relevant rules.

¶28

7. The petition along with pending application is disposed of.”

¶29

As per Rule 26(3) of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Rules, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ITBP Rules’], if Medical Board finds any subordinate officer or enrolled person unfit for further service in the Force, there is a provision to challenge the same by way of filing a representation to the Competent Authority supported by a prima facie evidence of error of judgement in the opinion expressed by the Medical Board.

¶30

Under Rule 26(4) of the ITBP Rules, there is a further provision for referring the officer to another Medical Board for review, provided a representation was made in this regard.

¶31

However, under Rule 26(5) of the ITBP Rules, if no representation is made against the opinion of the Medical Board, the Competent Authority would declare him unfit for further service and thereafter, discharge him.

¶32

Pursuant to the order passed on 20.01.2026, the Petitioner was granted 30 days’ time to file an appeal before the Appellate Board. However, the Petitioner did not file any appeal and ultimately, the Petitioner was boarded out of service on 20.02.2026, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

¶33

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that only 151 pages of the Medical Board opinion was given to the Petitioner relating to his medical documents, which, he deems insufficient.

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel representing the Respondents

¶35

¶36

submits that the Petitioner had been provided the relevant medical record and that the Petitioner had never applied for constituting a fresh Medical Board to review the opinion of the earlier Medical Board. The Competent Authority, while passing the Impugned Order, had examined the Petitioner’s record in detail.

¶37

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

The present Petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands closed.

¶39

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶40

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶41

APRIL 09, 2026 jai/kb

¶42

Sanjay Khali v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Khali v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baba Saheb Ambedkar Technical Educational Society Vs Union of India

Techniko Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs 1. National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Anr.

Bhagwan Dass Arora Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Narendar Pal Sachdeva Vs DDA and Anr.

Varutha Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manju Bala Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anjuman Himayatul Islam Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Minakshi Dhabhai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Mandal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shakuntala Pandey Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India Vs Ex. Capt. Akshay Mohan Molpha

Aftab Hussain Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Atul Cryogenic Gases Vs M/S Aryaveer Motors Private Limited