Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st AUGUST, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
YOGINDER SINGH YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates.
Through: Mr Mukul Singh CGSC
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak SPC
TARA CHAND .....Petitioner
BHUPENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner
K. KARTHIK .....Petitioner
TEJ PAL .....Petitioner
SURESH MEENA .....Petitioner 13.01.22
Through: Ms. Arti Singh, SPC
ROMEO HAOKIP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel along
Advocate.
ROHIT DIWAKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arti Singh, SPC, Ms. Shruti Goel, Advocates.
RAJEEV KUMAR .....Petitioner 13.01.22
Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr. Virender Pratap
Singh Charak, Mr. Rishav Dubey Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT
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
3. W.P.(C) 9459/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing
4. W.P.(C) 9461/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing 13.01.22
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
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
7. W.P.(C) 11769/2016 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing
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
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
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
11. The facts, in brief, leading to the present Petitions are that the 13.01.22 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 YOGINDER SINGH YADAV W.P.(C) 9454/2016 09.04.2012 Absent without leave (AWL) for two days. (Section 19 (a) of the BSF Act,
1968) 2016-17 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH W.P.(C) 9456/2016 16.04.2012 1968) 2016-17 TARA CHAND W.P.(C) 9459/2016 1968) 2016-17 BHUPENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9461/2016 2016-17 13.01.22 1968) K. KARTHIK W.P.(C) 9464/2016 08.01.2014 Failure to call for an explanation from ASI (Steno) Manpreet Singh as directed by the Commandant. (Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968) 2016-17 TEJ PAL W.P.(C) 9502/2016 20.11.2015 Retrospectively endorsed entries of leave sanctioned to one constable for the year 2016-17 7 SURESH MEENA W.P.(C) 11769/2016 19.01.2015 (Severe Reprimand) Overstaying leave without authorization for 26 days. (Section 19 (b) 1968) 2016-17 ROMEO HAOKIP W.P.(C) 11648/2017 30.04.2012 & 16.08.2013 (Severe Reprimand) and overstaying leave (OSL). (Sections 19 (a) and 19 (b) of the BSF Act, 1968) 2017-2018 ROHIT DIWAKAR W.P.(C) 2791/2018 25.05.2015 Disobedience of lawful command (Section 40 of BSF Act, 1968) 2017-2018 RAJEEV KUMAR 05.07.2013 Overstaying leave for 233 2017-2018 13.01.22 W.P.(C) 1642/2025 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 13.01.22 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