BISWAJIT ROY v. UNION OF INDIA

Delhi High Court · 01 Mar 2021 · 2021:DHC:776-DB
Manmohan; Asha Menon
W.P.(C) 8199/2019
2021:DHC:776-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that writ petitions challenging only show cause notices issued by Sashastra Seema Bal are premature and directed that termination orders, if passed, be stayed for two weeks to enable statutory appeals under Rule 29 of the SSB Rules, 2009.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 8199/2019 and other connected matters
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P. (C) 8199/2019
BISWAJIT ROY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K B Upadhyay, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Chauhan, Advocate.
Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocate for UOI.
W.P. (C) 9287/2020, CM APPL. 29956/2020
BHAGIRATH .....Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Arnav Kumar, Senior Panel (UOI).
W.P. (C) 10790/2019, CM APPL. 44578/2019
KAVENDRA SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocate for UOI.
W.P. (C) 12925/2019, CM APPL. 52736/2019
ALOK PATEL .....Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents 2021:DHC:776-DB
Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate with Mr. Suraj Kumar GP.
Mr. Kamal Kant Jha and Ms. Sheetal Raghuvanshi, Advocates.
W.P. (C) 12929/2019, CM APPL. 52740/2019
HARJEET SINGH .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha and
W.P. (C) 12958/2019, CM APPL. 52829/2019
AMIT HANSDA .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha and
W.P. (C) 218/2020, CM APPL. 691/2020
AJAY KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. D S Mehandru, Advocate.
Date of Decision: 01st March, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral)

1. The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.:

2. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging show cause notices issued by the respondent No. 3 (Sashastra Seema Bal).

3. Learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objections to the maintainability of the present writ petitions on the ground that they are premature as they assail only show cause notices. He further submits that in the event an adverse order is passed against the petitioners in pursuance to the show cause notices, the petitioners have alternative effective remedy of filing statutory appeals under Rule 29 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules,

2009.

4. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would be satisfied in the event this Court were to direct that if termination orders are passed in pursuance to the impugned show cause notices, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks, so that the petitioner can avail of the statutory remedy.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court directs that the respondents shall pass a reasoned order disposing of the show cause notices within two weeks. However, in the event the services of the petitioners are terminated, then the said order shall not be given effect to for two weeks, during which time, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file statutory appeals under Rule 29 of Shasatra Seema Bal Rules, 2009. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

6. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J ASHA MENON, J MARCH 01, 2021 TS