Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA ORS

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Mr. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters Shivansh Bansal and Ms. Raunak, Advs. + W.P.(C) 5119/2024 MD. ALFAZ ALAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Saket, SPCG with with Mr. Amit Acharya, GP, Mr. Manish Madhukar, Mr, Abhigyan, Ms. Reya Paul and Ms. Amruta Padhi, Advs. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv. + W.P.(C) 5121/2024, CM APPL. 60029/2025 YOGESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Krishna Chandra Dubey, Ms. Uma Tarafdar and Mr. Parag Kumar, Advs. for UOI + W.P.(C) 5122/2024 RINKU KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters Through: Mr. Vikrant N Goyal, Mr. Kunal Dixit, Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh and Mr. Piyush Wadhwa, Advs. + W.P.(C) 5125/2024 SANDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Dr. B. Ramaswamy, CGSC for UOI Mr. Nishant Gautam, Adv. + W.P.(C) 5131/2024 AJEET SINGH YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu and Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs. + W.P.(C) 5132/2024 VIKASH KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters + W.P.(C) 5935/2024 CHANDRAVIR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshat Singh, Sr. PC with Mr. Utkarsh Kandpal, Adv. for UOI + W.P.(C) 7569/2024 RAMKARAN YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 10904/2024 NEEKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Mr Shivansh Bansal and Ms. Raunak, Advs. + W.P.(C) 10905/2024 MATTA NAVEEN Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, Mr. Amit Raj and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh, Sr. PC with Ms. Kavya Roy Choudhury, Adv. for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT 11.11.2025 OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the orders of dismissal from the Indian Coast Guard dated 28.02.2024, and, consequently, seeking reinstatement of the petitioners with full pay and other benefits. The petitions further assail Rule 23 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 19861, as being violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Further, the writ petitions call for the record of proceedings leading to the dismissal of the petitioners, which includes the offence report, Record/Abstract of Evidence2, the Punishment Approval Form under the Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules, 19833, and the subsequent Board of Inquiry4 proceedings. 1 <General Rules= hereinafter 2 <AOE= hereinafter 3 <Discipline Rules= hereinafter 4 <BOI= hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters

2. Since the issues arising in the present batch of writ petitions are identical and the allegations levied against the petitioners arise from the same transaction, accordingly, all petitions have been heard together and are as such being disposed of by way of this common judgment. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5103 of 2024 titled Rajveer v. Union of India & Ors., is treated as the lead matter for the purposes of adjudication of the present batch of petitions. BACKGROUND

3. Before delving into the rival contentions, we deem it fit to note the brief factual matrix. The petitioners herein were serving as members of the Indian Coast Guard5 and were posted on board the Indian Coast Guard Ship6 Sarthak, which was en route from Goa Shipyard Limited, Vasco da Gama, Goa to Porbandar, Gujarat. It is alleged that the petitioners were involved in smuggling of 1,512 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor7 on board, in consequence of which they were all dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 28.02.2024. For the sake of clarity and to effectively address the common

4. issues as well as the factual distinctions, the petitioners have been categorised into two groups based on the type of proceedings to which they were subjected. It is stated that while one faction underwent summary trial proceedings and subsequently BOI proceedings, the other was subjected only to BOI proceedings. The first category 5 <ICG= hereinafter 6 <ICGS= hereinafter 7 <IMFL= hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters consists of 15 petitioners against whom summary trial proceedings were conducted and accordingly minor punishments were proposed. However, subsequently, the said punishments were set aside, and the petitioners were subject to fresh BOI proceedings which ultimately led to their dismissal from service. It has also been stated in the records that certain petitioners in this category were on leave at the time when the search and seizure of the contraband (IMFL) took place. Further, since this is a batch of 25 writ petitions, there exist certain factual variations, particularly concerning the posts held by each petitioner at the relevant time and the number of bottles allegedly seized from each petitioner. The individual details pertaining to the petitioners as per the record falling under this category, including their respective posts, leave details, and the number of bottles allegedly seized from the petitioners on board, are set out below in a tabulated form: S. No. Writ Petition Details

1. W.P.(C) No. Date of Joining and Post when cause of action arose

07.08.2019; Navik (ME) No. of Bottles Recovered Leave Details 170 Petitioner was living as Money in lieu of Ration8 family member and 23.12.2022, petitioner went family quarters Porbandar

2. W.P.(C) No.

20.07.2007; Adhikari (QA) 35 - Signature Not Verified 8 <MLR= hereinafter Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters

3. W.P.(C) No.

01.10.2002; Adhikari (STD)

4. W.P.(C) No.

30.03.2011; Pradhan Navik (STD) 70 170

5. W.P.(C) No.

01.08.2006; Adhikari (ME) 70

6. W.P.(C) No.

30.01.2006; Adhikari (QA)

7. W.P.(C) No.

21.01.2008; Adhikari (R)

8. W.P.(C) No.

08.08.2018; Uttam Yantrik (SW)

9. W.P.(C) No.

21.01.2008; Adhikari (RP) 20 24 25 80

10. W.P.(C) No.

13.02.2013; Pradhan Yantrik (ER) 85 & Petitioner was living family as MLR member 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar Petitioner was living family as MLR member 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar & Earned Leave from 19.12.2022 30.12.2022 as per Genform. & Petitioner was living family as MLR member 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar Living as MLR, on o 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar Petitioner was living on the ship and was not in family quarter Petitioner was living family as MLR member 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar. & Petitioner went on earned 26.12.2022 06.01.2023 as per the Genform but stated in the petition that he was called back on board on 03.01.2023 Living as MLR, on 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters

11. W.P.(C) No.

31.07.2000; Uttam Adhikari (RO)

12. W.P.(C) No.

20.08.2014; Pradhan Yantrik (ER)

13. W.P.(C) No.

20.01.2011; Pradhan Navik (RO)

14. W.P.(C) No.

12.02.2010; Pradhan Yantrik (R)

15. W.P.(C) No.

07.02.2020; Navik (P) 35 28 85 195 130 Living as MLR, on 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar Living as MLR, on 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar Living as MLR, on 23.12.2022 went family quarters Porbandar. In reply to show-cause notice, the petitioner contends were on leave from 26.12.2022 13.01.2023 but was called 03.01.2023. notice, to show- In reply petitioner states that he was on 10 days earned leave w.e.f. 09.11.2022. Petitioner was on 09.02.2024 for 15 days till 25.02.2204. However, allegedly petitioner did not join back from 26.02.2024 onwards <marked run= Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters

5. The second category consists of 11 petitioners against whom the summary trial proceedings were not initiated and were directly subjected to the BOI proceedings, leading to their dismissal. The relevant particulars of these petitioners as per the record are provided as follows: S. No. Writ Petition Details Date of Joining and Post when cause of action arose No. of Bottles Recovered Leave Details

2. - - W.P.(C) No.

08.02.2017; Navik (RP) Uttam 30 Purchase of liquor worth Rs. 21,276/- W.P.(C) No.

12.02.2010; Sahayak Engineer (P) Uttam In reply to show-cause notice, the petitioner admitted the purchase of liquor worth Rs. 21,276/- but stated that he consumed it in Goa itself.

3. W.P.(C) No.

18.08.2014; Navik (AH) Uttam 10

5. W.P.(C) No.

09.11.2021; (CK) Navik W.P.(C) No.

13.02.2018; Navik (RP) 13 20 The petitioner was on board for 19 02.11.2022 till 20.11.2022 and therafter reported duty on ICGS Sarthak ICGS Porbandar on 23.12.2022 - - Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters

6. W.P.(C) No.

30.07.2012; Navik (ME) Pradhan 10

7. W.P.(C) No.

06.02.2020; (GD) Navik 16 Petitioner lived in Goa as MLR 13.11.2022 20.11.2022 as show-cause notice. Petitioner states during refit/dry dock period of ICGS Sarthak, resided outside the ship during off duty hours. The petitioner had applied for earned leave for 22 days 07.03.2024 to 31.03.2024 via mail which was allegedly not granted since the Genform dt. 13.03.2024 (accompanying the dismissal order) states that the petitioner took leave without approval, hence, the Petitioner was <declared marked run= w.e.f. 06.03.2024. Petitioner was on casual leave for 05 days with two prefix and two suffix i.e., Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters

17.12.2022 till 25.12.2022. The Genform 05.03.2024 stated that the petitioner was absent without w.e.f. 02.03.2024.

9. W.P.(C) No.

14.02.2014; Navik (P) W.P.(C) No.

22.07.2010; Navik (RP) Uttam 8 - Pradhan 10 Petitioner, his reply, states that out of 51 days of the dry dock/refit ICGS Sarthak, he was only present for 16 days on board.

10. W.P.(C) No.

11. W.P.(C) No. Pradhan Naivak (QA); Admitted in reply to Notice Show-cause that he bought liquor for a birthday party with no intent consume on board.

09.09.2021; Naivak (QA); Admitted the purchase of bottles in Goa for brother’s marriage in his reply to Show-cause Notice 25 25 - -

6. Reverting to the common factual background of the petitions before this Court, it is stated that the ICGS Sarthak was docked at Goa Shipyard Ltd. for a Guarantee Refit/Dry Dock (GRDD) and upon completion of the refit, the vessel departed for Porbandar, Gujarat. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters

7. During the voyage, on 17.12.2022, an inspection round was allegedly conducted on ICGS Sarthak. It is undisputed that no contraband was found during this inspection, and an <OK= report was forwarded to the Commander, Coast Guard District Headquarters No. 1 (Respondent No. 5) at Porbandar. The ship thereafter arrived at Porbandar, Gujarat on 23.12.2022.

8. Two days after its arrival, on 25.12.2022 around 11 a.m., the Commanding Officer, ICGS Sarthak (Respondent No. 7) purportedly received information that certain personnel had brought illicit liquor on the ship. Consequently, Respondent No. 7 constituted a Board of Officers to conduct a search of personal lockers, living spaces, office spaces and shared areas such as dining halls. The search continued till 9 p.m., during which approximately 264 liquor bottles were allegedly recovered from the personal and office spaces of six personnel.

9. The following day, another search was undertaken covering tanks, void spaces, machinery compartments and other concealed areas. It is stated that the search lasted until 30.12.2022 and resulted in the alleged recovery of 868 bottles of liquor. In addition, around 380 unclaimed bottles of liquor were found in void spaces, air treatment units, bilges, mess panels, ballast tanks etc. Following the search, the personnel who were on leave, or living as MLR in family quarters, or otherwise not on board were called back to ICGS Sarthak in connection with the inquiry relating to the recovery of illicit liquor. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters

10. Considering the seized bottles to be a hazard on the ship, on

31.12.2022, Respondent No. 7 constituted a Board of Officers for the disposal of the contraband, which was carried out on the same day.

11. After the search, seizure and disposal thereof, it is stated that the respondents constituted another Board to ascertain the circumstances under which the liquor was discreetly brought on the ship. As per the proceedings of the aforementioned Board dated 01.01.2023, it was determined that the incident might have originated from two or three personnel bringing small quantities of liquor on board, which was subsequently followed by others but there was no conclusive finding as to from whom this chain of events had begun. Upon examination, the alleged modus operandi was found to be that the personnel brought small quantities of bottles in backpacks which were likely wrapped and hidden with care in void spaces, beneath bunks, shoe racks, office spaces, etc. These findings formed the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against all the petitioners in the first category.

12. Thereafter, the authorities held a summary hearing/proceeding on the charge under Rule 20 of the Discipline Rules on 01.01.2023 (and on 04–05.01.2023 in some cases). These brief proceedings led to a proposed minor punishment vide order dated 09.01.2023 under Section 57(g), i.e., deprivation of good conduct badges. During the course of these hearings, it is alleged that the petitioners were made to give handwritten statements wherein they purportedly admitted allegations.

13. However, the summary trial proceedings were later set aside on

20.01.2023 (communicated vide order dated 12.10.2023) by the Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters Commander, Coast Guard Region (NW) (i.e., the Deputy Inspector General9 in the present case), on grounds, inter alia, that the proceedings were conducted in haste and in a biased manner. Accordingly, the BOI proceedings were convened vide order dated

08.02.2023.

14. Based on the BOI proceedings, Respondent No. 3 issued respective show-cause notices on 23.10.2023 under Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 23 of the General Rules, alleging that 25 personnel (petitioners herein) had purchased IMFL bottles (1,512 in total) from Goa between 25.12.2022 and 30.12.2022 and brought them on ICGS Sarthak without due authorisation. The petitioners submitted their respective replies purportedly denying the said allegations.

15. The respondents, however, found the abovementioned replies unsatisfactory and hence, proceeded to issue the impugned dismissal orders dated 28.02.2024. The petitioners allege that the dismissal orders were issued without furnishing the Offence Report, AOE, or a copy of BOI proceedings, thereby adversely affecting their right to properly defend themselves. The present petitions assail the said dismissal orders, the non-supply of essential evidentiary material and the alleged procedural infirmities violating principles of natural justice. SUBMISSIONS SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COGNATE PETITIONERS 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, to act upon the allegations, the respondents could have resorted to one of the Signature Not Verified 9 <DIG= hereinafter Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters three procedures available, i.e., either proceed under Section 57 of the Act or convene Coast Guard Court under Chapter VII of the Act or as under Rule 23 of the General Rules. However, it was emphasised that the respondents did not follow any of the aforementioned procedures.

17. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that only 40-50 personnel were subjected to the BOI proceedings out of a total of 112 personnel on the ship, without any intelligible reason for the exclusion of others. Further that during BOI proceedings, they were either compelled into reiterating the same coerced admissions made during the summary trial, or that they had denied making any such admissions or did not make any statements at all. The petitioners assert that they were not allowed to meaningfully take part in the BOI proceedings, and that their signatures were forcefully taken on an undertaking/certificate on 09.03.2023 to show the compliance of due procedure.

18. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the procedure leading up to the dismissal of the petitioners in both categories was violative of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that there were no eyewitnesses, no CCTV footage, no signatures of the petitioners in their statements, the petitioners were not cautioned as under Rule 23(2) of the General Rules, and that there was no procedural compliance of Chapter VII of the said Rules. Additionally, in the case of the petitioners belonging to the first category, it was stated that no show-cause notice was issued before the proposal of minor punishment under Section 57(g) of the Act. It was also contended that once the minor punishment was proposed vide order Signature Not Verified No. 203 dated 09.01.2023, it could not have been set aside and Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters therefore, it attained finality. Consequently, the subsequent BOI proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioners in the first category, as the same is barred under Section 68 of the Act which prohibits a second trial on the same allegations and is also violative of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. To substantiate, reliance was placed on the proviso to Section 57 which stipulates that approval is required for punishments under sub-Sections (a) to (d) – both inclusive, and that the present case involved punishment under sub-Section (g) which did not warrant an approval. Hence, setting aside the proposed punishments under Rule 28(d) of the Discipline Rules is untenable, as the Rule only permits setting aside of punishments requiring prior approval.

19. Pertaining to the summary proceedings, it was submitted that the alleged admissions of the petitioners in the first category were obtained via handwritten statements. The learned Counsel vehemently challenged the veracity of the same and pressed that the petitioners were unilaterally declared guilty, coerced into making handwritten statements admitting guilt and forced to sign certain documents admitting the charges. Hence, the summary proceedings and the consequent proposed punishment were tainted having been arrived at on false pretexts.

20. Pertaining to the petitioners falling in the second category who were not subjected to the summary trial, it was submitted that Rule 28(d) does not apply since there was no withdrawal or setting aside of the proposed punishment. Rather, they were directly subjected to BOI Signature Not Verified proceedings. Hence, their case falls under the ambit of Rule 39(4) of Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters the General Rules, which stipulates the safeguards to be followed during BOI proceedings where an enquiry may adversely affect the concerned personnel. The Rule mandates that such personnel are to be granted a fair opportunity to remain present throughout the inquiry, make statements, furnish evidence, cross-examine witnesses and produce witnesses in their defence. It further stipulates that the Presiding Officer must ensure that the personnel affected are given due notice and fully understand their rights. It was contended that since the aforementioned requirements were not fulfilled, the principles of natural justice owed to the petitioners were unjustly violated. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on UOI & Anr. v. Purushottam10 and Ritesh Soni v. UOI11. It was further argued that the order of the Regional Law Officer12, Coast Guard Region (NW) setting aside the proposed punishment on 20.01.2023 was untenable in law since the RLO did not possess the power to set aside a punishment imposed by DIG and was only a forwarding authority. Additionally, it was submitted that the Coast Guard Order13 No. 02/93 stipulates that punishment under Section 57(e) to (k) do not require approval. Hence, the punishment under Section 57 (g) could not have been set aside under Rule 28(d) since the said Rule only applies to offences which require approval.

21. With respect to the power of setting aside a proposed punishment, the learned Counsel also submitted that Rule 28(d) of the Discipline Rules was not applicable in the present circumstance and 10 (2015) 3 SCC 779 11 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11827 12 <RLO= hereinafter 13 <CGO= hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters Rule 21 of the Discipline Rules, which disqualifies the Commanding Officer from dealing with certain cases, also does not apply, as the criteria stipulated therein were not satisfied. The accused ought to have been attached to other units or stations for the purposes of disciplinary action, which was not done in the present case.

22. It was contended by the learned Counsel that the non- compliance of Rule 39(4) during the BOI proceedings adversely affected the petitioners in both categories. Additionally, the non- compliance of Rule 23 of the General Rules which contains certain safeguards in cases of dismissal, has been stressed upon by the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners in both categories.

23. The learned Counsel submitted that the search conducted was not in accordance with Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no search or seizure memorandum was prepared, the search was done in voids and public areas, i.e., not in places where petitioners had exclusive access, and that the petitioners were not made part of the search conducted. The learned Counsel emphasises that nothing was placed on record regarding the specific details of the alcohol allegedly recovered, such as the brand name or the size, etc. it was further highlighted that these details were never made part of the evidence on record and that the contraband was destroyed before the summary proceedings began. It was also argued that certain petitioners were either on earned leave or living as MLR in family quarters and hence were not on board at the relevant time when the <possession= was alleged or when the alleged recovery was made. Further, the petitioners Signature Not Verified were also not afforded a real and effective opportunity to be heard Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters during the summary trial which led to the proposal of minor punishment under Section 57(g) of the Act. Further, certain discrepancies were also pointed out by the learned Counsel, such as that the alleged written statement by the petitioner in the lead matter pertained to 100 bottles whereas he was charged with possession of 70 bottles. It was argued that the handwritten statements pertaining to the summary trial, though carry signatures, were made under duress and threat. It was submitted that the petitioners were not granted liberty to leave the ship till the written statements were taken.

24. The learned Counsel submitted that the summary trial conducted under Section 57 of the Act did not follow due procedure since the petitioners were not present during the search and/or seizure and nor were they made aware of the material/evidence against them. Further, the validity of the statements of the petitioners during the BOI proceedings was challenged on the grounds that the petitioners did not admit the allegations and were rather forced/compelled to accept certain charges, their written statements were obtained under duress and coercion. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenged the validity of the BOI proceedings since, the petitioners were not allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard or defend themselves, they were not provided any material relied upon against them and further, it is argued that the respondents relied on certain typed statements which purportedly records the said admissions of the petitioners, however, the making of the admissions/statements in typed format do not carry signatures of the petitioners. To substantiate the aforementioned, the learned Counsel relied upon UOI & Ors. v. Mohd. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.11.2025 19:40:12 W.P.(C) 5103/2024 and other connected matters Ramzan Khan14, Ex Constable Randhir Singh CRPF v. UOI & Ors.15 and Kashinath Dikshita v. UOI & Ors16. Additionally, it was contended that there was no due caution as mandated under Rule 23 of the Discipline Rules. It was highlighted that the respondents did not sufficiently establish that the petitioners were given a suitable warning and sufficient time to defend themselves. Further, it was vehemently argued that an admission under threat cannot constitute evidence to the detriment of the petitioners.

25. The learned Counsel placed reliance upon the order setting aside the proposed minor punishment dated 20.01.2023 wherein the respondents quoted Article 0708 of the Ship’s Standing Orders, which stipulated that bringing alcohol on board did not constitute an offence, hence, the charge brought against the petitioners is invalid.

26. It was submitted that the show-cause notice dated 23.10.2023 did not satisfy the procedure in cases of dismissal of personnel laid down under Rule 23 of the General Rules and was furnished without supply of the BOI proceedings which violates principles of natural justice. It was highlighted that all the petitioners had denied the allegations in their respective replies to the show-cause notice, despite which, they came to be dismissed vide orders dated 28.02.2024 under Section 11(b) of the Act. It was further argued that the said show-cause notice was vague and did not provide a real opportunity of defence. Further, it did not carry any specifications regarding the liquor bottles