← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/9454/2016

Yoginder Singh Yadav v. Union Of India And ORS

2025-08-21Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav9 pages

$~30 to 39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 21st AUGUST, 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

+ W.P.(C) 9454/2016 YOGINDER SINGH YADAV .....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.

+ W.P.(C) 9456/2016 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH .....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.

+ 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 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 1 of 9

Through:

Mr. Himanshu Pathak SPC with Mr.

Amit Singh, Advs.

+ 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.

+ 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.

+ 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.

+ W.P.(C) 11769/2016 SURESH MEENA .....Petitioner 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.

+ 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.

+ 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.

+ W.P.(C) 1642/2025 RAJEEV KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Shayana Das Pattanayak, Advocates.

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 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 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: YEAR QUA WHICH PROMOTION DENIED NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND WPC NO.

S.I.

NO.

REPRIMAND/SEVERE REPRIMAND DATE NATURE OF MISCONDUCT Absent without leave (AWL) for two days.

(Section 19 (a) of the BSF Act, 1968) YOGINDER SINGH YADAV W.P.(C) 9454/2016 09.04.2012 2016-17 Absent without leave (AWL) for two days.

(Section 19 (a) of the BSF Act, 1968) SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH W.P.(C) 9456/2016 16.04.2012 2016-17 Absent without leave (AWL) for two days.

(Section 19 (a) of the BSF Act, 1968) TARA CHAND W.P.(C) 9459/2016 09.04.2012 2016-17 BHUPENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9461/2016 Absent without leave (AWL) for two days.

(Section 19 (a) 09.04.2012 2016-17 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 the Commandant.

(Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968) 08.01.2014 2016-17 K. KARTHIK W.P.(C) 9464/2016 Retrospectively endorsed entries of leave sanctioned to one constable for the year 20.11.2015 2016-17 TEJ PAL W.P.(C) 9502/2016 Overstaying leave without authorization for 26 days.

(Section 19 (b) of the BSF Act, 1968) 19.01.2015 (Severe Reprimand) SURESH MEENA W.P.(C) 11769/2016 2016-17 Absent without leave (AWL) and overstaying leave (OSL).

(Sections 19 (a) and 19 (b) of the BSF Act, 1968) 30.04.2012 & 16.08.2013 (Severe Reprimand) ROMEO HAOKIP W.P.(C) 11648/2017 2017-2018 Disobedience of lawful command (Section 40 of BSF Act, 1968) ROHIT DIWAKAR W.P.(C) 2791/2018 25.05.2015 2017-2018 RAJEEV KUMAR 05.07.2013 Overstaying leave for 233 2017-2018 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 7 of 9

days. (Section 19 (b) of the BSF Act, 1968) W.P.(C) 1642/2025 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 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 W.P.(C) 9454/2016 etc. Page 9 of 9