Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 04 Feb 2016 · 2016:DHC:9274-DB
Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur
W.P.(C) 551/2016
2016:DHC:9274-DB
administrative other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the BSF authorities to decide the petitioner's statutory petition challenging his dismissal within eight weeks by passing a speaking order, ensuring due process and the right to further legal remedies.

Full Text
Translation output
I
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 551/2016
KULDEEP SINGH ••••• Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3
CORAM:
X. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER o/o 04.01.2016
C.M. 2220/2016 fu/S 151 CPC^
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.fC^ 551/2016
JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the orders dated 6^" February, 2015 passed by the respondent No.3- Commandant, BSF and approved by the DIG, BSF vide order dated ll*^*^ April, 2015, whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner had filed a statutory petition W.P.(C) 551/2016 Pagelof[2] 2016:DHC:9274-DB under Section 117 (2) of the BSF Act on 20^^ November, 2015. However, the respondents have not conveyed any decision in the said petition, thereby compelling the petitioner to file the present petition.

3. Ms. Monika Arora, Central Government Standing Counsel, appears on advance notice and assures this Court that if the statutory petition of the petitioner is still pending, the same shall be decided within a period of eight weeks from today, under intimation to the petitioner.

4. ' This petition is accordingly disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the statutory petition of the petitioner dated 20^'' November, 2015 and decide the same within eight weeks by passing a speaking order, under written intimation to the petitioner. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order that may be passed, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies, as may be available in law. HIMA KOHLI, 3 SUNIL GAUR, 3 FEBRUARY 04, 2016 r