Ct. Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

Ct. Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's failure to resume duty after expiry of sanctioned casual leave — attributed by him to an allegedly unjustifiably declined 45-day leave-extension application and to domestic difficulties — was justified. +2 more

Court's answer

Personal difficulties, including matrimonial disputes and financial hardships, cannot justify prolonged unauthorized absence, particularly where the absentee made no effective effort to report back despite repeated communications and opportunities.

Ratio / Principle

In a disciplined force, unauthorized absence from duty is required to be viewed with utmost seriousness.

Key takeaways

Sufficient opportunities were afforded to the Petitioner to resume service before disciplinary action was initiated.ratio¶30
No procedural infirmity or illegality was identified in the conduct of the Court of Inquiry or in the decision culminating in the Impugned Orders; hence no ground for interference on process grounds.ratio¶31
The penalty of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate to continuous unauthorized absence from 17.04.2019 with non-response to statutory notices and publication; no interference warranted under Article 226.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal, J.; bench incl. Amit Mahajan, J.), W.P.(C) 4805/2026, decided 10.04.2026 — dismissed. A SSB Constable (GD), enrolled 30.07.2011, overstayed five days' casual leave (11.04.2019–16.04.2019) and remained absent from 17.04.2019. Despite three recall communications (20.04/06.05/21.05.2019), a Court of Inquiry (report 24.06.2019), declaration as deserter (22.07.2019), two show cause notices (29.07.2019; 17.08.2019, the latter published in Dainik Bhaskar on 25.08.2019), he never resumed duty or surrendered. He was dismissed with immediate effect on 12.09.2019 by the Commandant, 25 Bn SSB, under Rule 21 read with Rule 18 of the SSB Rules, 2009; his appeal was rejected on 06.05.2020, mercy petition returned 19.11.2022, and representation rejected 30.11.2022. Challenging these 'Impugned Orders' under Article 226, the Petitioner pleaded a declined 45-day leave extension and domestic/matrimonial and financial difficulties, and argued the dismissal was grossly disproportionate. Held: personal difficulties cannot justify prolonged unauthorized absence; sufficient opportunities preceded disciplinary action; judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to procedural illegality, perversity or natural-justice violations, none of which was pointed out; the penalty was not shockingly disproportionate. Writ petition dismissed.

$~41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 10.04.2026

- W.P.(C) 4805/2026

CT. AJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj and Mr. Rohit Pratap Singh, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC along with Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar, Adv.

CORAM:

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

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 12.09.2019 whereby the Petitioner was dismissed from service, as well as the order dated 06.05.2020 [hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Impugned Orders’] passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the Petitioner’s Appeal.

The Petitioner joined the 47^th Battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal [hereinafter referred to as ‘SSB’] on 30.07.2011 as Constable (GD). He remained posted there till 25.08.2016 and was thereafter

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 6.04.2026 12:11:50

transferred to the 64^th Battalion, where he served up to 02.09.2017. Subsequently, the Petitioner was transferred to the Recruit Training Centre (RTC), Alwar, Rajasthan, which is close to his hometown.

The Petitioner was sanctioned five (05) days’ casual leave with effect from 11.04.2019 to 16.04.2019 and was required to report back for duty thereafter. However, the Petitioner failed to resume duties upon expiry of the sanctioned leave. The Petitioner claims to have applied for extension of leave for a further period of forty-five (45) days through ordinary post; however, no reference to or consideration of such application is reflected in the official record.

Upon the Petitioner’s failure to resume duty, communications dated 20.04.2019, 06.05.2019 and 21.05.2019 were issued by the Respondents directing him to report back for duty at the earliest. Despite issuance of the aforesaid notices at the address available in the service record, the Petitioner neither responded nor resumed service.

In view of the continued unauthorized absence, a Court of Inquiry was constituted on 30.05.2019, which submitted its report on 24.06.2019. Pursuant thereto, an apprehension roll was issued to the concerned police authorities for securing the presence of the Petitioner; however, he could neither be apprehended nor did he voluntarily surrender. Consequently, the Petitioner was declared a deserter on 22.07.2019.

Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) dated 29.07.2019 was issued directing the Petitioner to report for duty within fourteen (14) days from receipt thereof. As the Petitioner failed to comply, a second

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 4805/2026 Page 2 of 5 Signing Da te:1 6.04.2026 12:11:50

SCN dated 17.08.2019 was issued and also published on 25.08.2019 in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar , granting him a further opportunity to resume duty within fifteen (15) days. Despite the same, the Petitioner did not resume service.

Accordingly, by the Impugned Order dated 12.09.2019, the Commandant, 25^th Battalion, SSB, Ghitorni, New Delhi, in exercise of powers under Rule 21 read with Rule 18 of the SSB Rules, 2009, dismissed the Petitioner from service with immediate effect. The Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected vide Impugned Order dated 06.05.2020, and the mercy petition submitted thereafter was returned on 19.11.2022. The record further indicates that a subsequent order dated 30.11.2022 was passed, rejecting the representation of the Petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had applied for extension of leave for a period of forty-five (45) days, which, according to him, was unjustifiably declined by the Respondents. It is further contended that owing to domestic difficulties, the Petitioner could not resume duty and, therefore, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and examined the material placed on record.

It is well settled that in a disciplined force, unauthorized absence from duty is required to be viewed with utmost seriousness. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the factum of

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 4805/2026 Page 3 of 5 Signing Da te:1 6.04.2026 12:11:50

absence. The explanation sought to be offered attributes such absence to personal and domestic circumstances, including matrimonial disputes arising from the Petitioner’s second marriage and the subsequent divorce, as well as financial difficulties arising out of dealings with a property broker. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that such personal difficulties cannot justify prolonged unauthorized absence, particularly when the Petitioner failed to make any effective effort to report back for duty even after repeated communications and opportunities extended by the Respondents. The record clearly demonstrates that sufficient opportunities were afforded to the Petitioner to resume service before initiating disciplinary action.

The scope of judicial review in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings is limited. Interference is warranted only where the decision-making process suffers from procedural illegality, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has been unable to point out any procedural infirmity or illegality in the conduct of the Court of Inquiry or in the decision culminating in the Impugned Orders.

The contention that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate is equally devoid of merit. The Petitioner remained continuously absent from duty with effect from 17.04.2019 and failed to respond even to statutory notices and publication issued calling upon him to resume service. In the circumstances, the penalty imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 4805/2026 Page 4 of 5 Signing Da te:1 6.04.2026 12:11:50

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present Writ Petition, the same is dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

APRIL 10, 2026 sp/shah

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 6.04.2026 12:11:50

W.P.(C) 4805/2026 Page 5 of 5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.09.2019 dismissing the Petitioner from service (issued by the Commandant, 25th Battalion, SSB, Ghitorni, New Delhi) together with the order dated 06.05.2020 of the Appellate Authority rejecting the Petitioner's appeal, collectively termed the 'Impugned Orders', sought to be quashed.¶12
Commandant, 25th Battalion, SSB, Ghitorni, New Delhi (dismissal order); Appellate Authority (rejection of appeal) · 12.09.2019 (dismissal); 06.05.2020 (appellate rejection)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner enlisted in the 47th Battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 30.07.2011 as Constable (GD); later transferred to the 64th Battalion (till 02.09.2017) and then to the Recruit Training Centre (RTC), Alwar, Rajasthan.¶13
Prior proceeding
Petitioner sanctioned five days' casual leave from 11.04.2019 to 16.04.2019; failed to resume duty on expiry; his claimed 45-day leave-extension application sent by ordinary post finds no reference in official records.¶17
Prior proceeding
Communications dated 20.04.2019, 06.05.2019 and 21.05.2019 issued by the Respondents directing the Petitioner to report back for duty; he neither responded nor resumed service.¶18
Prior proceeding
Court of Inquiry constituted on 30.05.2019, report submitted on 24.06.2019; apprehension roll issued but Petitioner neither apprehended nor surrendered; declared a deserter on 22.07.2019.¶19
Prior proceeding
First Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2019 directing the Petitioner to report for duty within fourteen days of receipt; he failed to comply.¶20
Prior proceeding
Second SCN dated 17.08.2019, published on 25.08.2019 in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, granting a further fifteen days to resume duty; Petitioner again did not resume service.¶23
Prior proceeding
Dismissal order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Commandant, 25th Battalion, SSB, Ghitorni, New Delhi, in exercise of powers under Rule 21 read with Rule 18 of the SSB Rules, 2009, dismissing the Petitioner from service with immediate effect.¶24
Prior proceeding
Appeal preferred by the Petitioner rejected vide Impugned Order dated 06.05.2020; mercy petition returned on 19.11.2022; subsequent order dated 30.11.2022 rejected the Petitioner's representation.¶24