Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak SPC with Mr. Amit Singh, Advs. 32 + W.P.(C) 9459/2016 TARA CHAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 1 of 9 Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak SPC with Mr. Amit Singh, Advs. 33 + W.P.(C) 9461/2016 BHUPENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak SPC with Mr. Amit Singh, Advs. 34 + W.P.(C) 9464/2016 K. KARTHIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak SPC with Mr. Amit Singh, Advs. 35 + W.P.(C) 9502/2016 TEJ PAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr Mukul Singh CGSC with Ms Ira Singh, Advs. 36 + W.P.(C) 11769/2016 SURESH MEENA .....Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 2 of 9 Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates. versus UOI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Arti Singh, SPC with Ms. Shruti Goel, Advocates. 37 + W.P.(C) 11648/2017 ROMEO HAOKIP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel along with Mr Yash Narain Advocate. 38 + W.P.(C) 2791/2018 ROHIT DIWAKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Arti Singh, SPC, Ms. Shruti Goel, Advocates. 39 + W.P.(C) 1642/2025 RAJEEV KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 3 of 9 versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Mr. Rishav Dubey Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV JUDGMENT (ORAL) SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. 1. W.P.(C) 9454/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 2. W.P.(C) 9456/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 3. W.P.(C) 9459/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 4. W.P.(C) 9461/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 4 of 9 Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 5. W.P.(C) 9464/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 30.05.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 6. W.P.(C) 9502/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 28.07.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 7. W.P.(C) 11769/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 8. W.P.(C) 11648/2017 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 11.08.2017, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 9. W.P.(C) 2791/2018 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 07.02.2018, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 10. W.P.(C) 1642/2025 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 11.08.2017, passed by the Respondent No.3 herein rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). 11. The facts, in brief, leading to the present Petitions are that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 5 of 9 Petitioners herein are enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) and are presently working in the rank of Head Constable in the Ministerial Cadre in BSF. It is stated that the Petitioners became eligible for promotion to the rank of ASI (Ministerial) and their names were considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). However, the Petitioners were not recommended for promotion to the rank of ASI (Ministerial) primarily for the reason that punishment of reprimand/severe reprimand was imposed on the Petitioners during their tenure as Head Constable (Ministerial). A table showing the details of the Petitioners along with the nature of misconduct and the date of reprimand is given below as under: S.I. NO. NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND WPC NO. REPRIMAND/SEVERE REPRIMAND DATE NATURE OF MISCONDUCT YEAR QUA WHICH PROMOTION DENIED 1 2 3 4 YOGINDER SINGH YADAV W.P.(C) SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH W.P.(C) TARA CHAND W.P.(C) BHUPENDER KUMAR W.P.(C)

09.04.2012

16.04.2012

09.04.2012

09.04.2012 Absent without leave (AWL) for two days. (Section 19 (a) of the BSF Act, 1968) Absent without leave (AWL) for two days. (Section 19 (a) of the BSF Act, 1968) Absent without leave (AWL) for two days. (Section 19 (a) of the BSF Act, 1968) Absent without leave (AWL) for two days. (Section 19 (a) 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 6 of 9 of the BSF Act, 1968) Failure to call for an explanation from ASI (Steno) Manpreet Singh as directed by Commandant. (Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968) Retrospectively endorsed entries of leave sanctioned to one constable for the year 2013 Overstaying leave without authorization for 26 days. (Section 19 (b) of the BSF Act, 1968) Absent without leave (AWL) and overstaying leave (OSL). (Sections 19 (a) and 19 (b) of the BSF Act, 1968) Disobedience of lawful command (Section 40 of BSF Act, 1968) Overstaying leave for 233 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 2017-2018 2017-2018 2017-2018 5 6 7 8 9 10 K. KARTHIK W.P.(C) TEJ PAL W.P.(C) SURESH MEENA W.P.(C) ROMEO HAOKIP W.P.(C) ROHIT DIWAKAR W.P.(C) RAJEEV KUMAR

08.01.2014

20.11.2015

19.01.2015 (Severe Reprimand)

30.04.2012 & 16.08.2013 (Severe Reprimand)

25.05.2015

05.07.2013 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 7 of 9 W.P.(C) days. (Section 19 (b) of the BSF Act, 1968)

12. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have not been communicated the order of reprimand/severe reprimand and, therefore, they could not have been declared as unfit for promotion by the DPC on the basis of uncommunicated punishment. It is stated by the Petitioners that barring the uncommunicated reprimands, the APAR entries of the Petitioners range from very good to outstanding and the DPC has only taken into account the uncommunicated punishment/reprimands while deciding the suitability of candidates for promotion to the rank of ASI (Ministerial). It is stated by the Petitioners that uncommunicated reprimands cannot be the sole basis for denial of promotion to the Petitioners. The Petitioners, therefore, state that without seeking reply from the Petitioners, the punishment of reprimand could not have been given to the Petitioners. 13. Counter Affidavits have been filed. In the counter affidavit it is not stated as to whether the punishment of reprimand or the procedure for grant of punishment was followed and the Petitioners were communicated about the order of punishment on the basis of which the Petitioners have been adjudged unfit for promotion to the rank of ASI (Ministerial). 14. In the opinion of this Court an uncommunicated order cannot be a basis to declare the Petitioners unfit for promotion. Without communicating the reprimand orders to the Petitioners and seeking their reply/representation for the same, the Respondents could not have proceeded ahead. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned Office Orders rejecting the representations of the Petitioners herein. The Respondents are Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 8 of 9 directed to convey the reprimand orders to the Petitioners and call for an explanation from them regarding the punishments imposed on them which has become adverse to the Petitioners and the Petitioners’ case for promotion has not been considered. The Respondents are directed to consider the explanations given by the Petitioners and proceed in accordance with the Rules and if the reprimand imposed on the Petitioners is removed, the Respondents are further directed to hold a review DPC to consider as to whether the Petitioners are fit for promotion to ASI (Ministerial) or not. Let the said exercise be concluded within six weeks from today. 15. With these directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, along with the pending applications, if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J AUGUST 21, 2025 Rahul Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:08.09.2025 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 9 of 9