Delhi High Court
Rajnish Kumar Ex Constable Gd vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of Home … on 2 May, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 30.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 02.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 11617/2023
RAJNISH KUMAR EX CONSTABLE GD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr.
Naman Sherstra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Ritu Reniwal, SPC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. By the present petition, the Petitioner essentially challenges the
correctness of the order dated 04.08.2021 (hereafter ‘impugned
order’) passed by Respondent No. 5 whereby the Petitioner was
found guilty of the charges under Sections 20(b), 20(c), 22(a), 40 of
the BSF Act, 1968 and was sentenced to be dismissed from service.
2. Succinctly put, the relevant facts necessary for the adjudication
of the present petition are as follows:
2.1. The Petitioner was working as Constable (GD) in the Border
Security Force. It is alleged that on 26.07.2021, the Petitioner pointed
his personal weapon towards his superior officer and used
insubordinate language towards them. It is further alleged that the
Petitioner neglected to obey the orders and acted in a manner that wasSignature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 11617/2023 Page 1 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
prejudicial to the discipline of the force. Based on the said allegations,
the following charges were framed against the Petitioner :
FIRST USING THREATENING LANGUAGE TO HIS
CHARGE BSF SUPERIOR OFFICER
ACT, 1968 In that he,
Sec-20(b) On 26.07.2021 at MMG Morcha of BOP Choura
Forward-II, 89 Bn BSF pointed his personal
weapon towards SI Tejpal Singh, HC Surender
Kumar and CT Dipender Tiwari and said "GOLI
MAAR DUNGA" or words to that effect.
SECOND USING IN-SUBORDINATE LANGUAGE TO
CHARGE BSF HIS SUPERIOR
ACT 1968 In that he,
Sec-20(c) On 26.07.2021 at MMG Morcha of BOP Choura
Forward-II, 89 Bn BSF used insubordinate
language to SI Tejpal Singh, HC Surender Kumar
and CT Dipender Tiwari
THIRD NEGLECTING TO OBEY BATTALION
CHARGE BSF ORDERS
ACT 1968 In that he,
Section 22(a) At about 1533 hrs on 26.07.2021 while performing
PTZ Camera duty at MMG Morcha of BOP
Choura Forward-II, 89 Bn BSF, contrary to Bn
order No. Estt/300/89 Bn/2020/5442-50 dated 14
May 2020 which prohibited using of mobile phone
while on duty was found using mobile phone.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 11617/2023 Page 2 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
FOURTH AN ACT PREJUDICAL TO GOOD ORDER
CHARGE BSF AND DISCIPLINE OF THE FORCE
ACT 1968 In that he
Sec 40 On 26.07.2021, while performing PTZ Camera
duty at MMG Morcha of BOP Choura Forward –
II, when caught red handed using mobile phone
and further broke his mobile phone and thrown it
away in a nearby water body in order to destroy the
evidence.
2.2. The Petitioner was tried by the Summary Security Force Court
from 02.08.2021 to 04.08.2021 post which vide impugned order, the
Petitioner was found guilty of the said charges and was sentenced to
be dismissed from service.
2.3. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a Statutory Petition against
the impugned order which also came to be dismissed on 26.10.2022.
Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the same is
violative of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the
Petitioner was never provided with any opportunity to defend the
charges levied against him. He submitted that the Petitioner was never
summoned or afforded opportunity to lead evidence or cross examine
the witnesses. He submitted that the off-record trial proceedings
initiated against the Petitioner without giving him any opportunity to
appear and defend the charges levied against him vitiates the entire
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 11617/2023 Page 3 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
trial. He consequently prays that the impugned order be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned SPC submitted that the contention of the
Petitioner is contrary to the record. She submitted in the order dated
26.10.2022 whereby the Statutory Petition against the impugned order
was disposed of, it was specifically noted that the Petitioner did not
examine any witness in his defense, however, he had given a written
statement before the Court. She further submitted that the order dated
26.10.2022 also records that the Petitioner had carried out cross
examination of almost all the prosecution witnesses. She consequently
submitted that the present petition is without any merit and is liable to
be dismissed.
5. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the
parties and has perused the record. The original record pertaining to
the SSFC Trial Proceeding of the Petitioner has also been handed
over.
6. The principal argument pressed by the Petitioner is that the trial
proceedings stood vitiated since the Petitioner was not afforded any
opportunity to lead evidence or cross examine the witnesses. It has
been urged that since the Petitioner was not given an opportunity to
defend himself on the charges levied against him, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
7. Taking note of the limited grievance of the Petitioner, this Court
turns its gaze towards the original record pertaining to the SSFC Trial
Proceeding of the Petitioner. Upon a perusal of the same, it transpires
that the Petitioner was brought before the Court in the proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 11617/2023 Page 4 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
conducted before the SSFC between 02.08.2021 – 04.08.2021. The
original record materializes that the Petitioner was arraigned upon
each charge mentioned in the chargesheet to which the Petitioner
pleaded ‘not guilty.’ Evidently, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses
being – SI Tejpal Singh, Bhupinder Vikas (Deputy Commandant), Ct
Pramod Kumar, HC Surender Kumar, Ct Dipendra Tiwari, Inspector
Shesh Pal in relation to the allegations levelled against the Petitioner.
From the original record, it transpires that the Petitioner was duly
afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, and he also
did cross examine the above stated prosecution witnesses post which
the Prosecution evidence was closed. The original record further notes
that the Petitioner was asked if he wanted to call any defence witness
to which the Petitioner answered in negative and stated that he wanted
some time for giving a written statement which was granted to him. It
is thus apparent that contrary to the stance taken by the Petitioner, the
Petitioner participated in the proceedings before the SSFC and was
also duly afforded an opportunity to defend himself and present his
case.
8. Furthermore, the order dated 26.10.2022 whereby the Statutory
Petition preferred by the Petitioner against the impugned order was
dismissed also notes that sufficient material existed to show that the
Petitioner was guilty of the charges. It was noted that the Petitioner
cross examined the prosecution witnesses, however, nothing came on
record to conclude that the Petitioner had falsely been implicated in
the present case. It was noted that the Petitioner could not lead any
evidence/questions to contradict the answer of the witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 11617/2023 Page 5 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
9. On such a conspectus of facts, and upon a consideration of the
material on record as well as the original record, it is apparent that the
Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to defend himself on the
charges levied against him during the trial proceedings and was also
duly given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The original
record makes it clear that the Petitioner participated in the proceedings
before the SSFC. The limited argument thus taken by the Petitioner
that the trial proceedings stood vitiated since the Petitioner was not
afforded an opportunity to defend himself and the impugned order is
consequently liable to be set aside on that ground alone, is without any
merit.
10. Even otherwise, insofar as the allegations are concerned, it is
settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over the orders
passed by the concerned authorities. The scope of judicial review is
limited to examining the decision-making process and not the
correctness of the decision on merits. The High Court, while
exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot delve into the exercise of
reappreciating the evidence and substituting the factual findings
recorded by the concerned authorities (Ref. Syed Yakoob v K.S.
Radhakrishnan : 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24).
11. In the present case as well, the impugned order is helmed on
cogent factual findings and the same has also been upheld by the
Appellate Authority while dismissing the Statutory Petition preferred
by the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any
ground to warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 11617/2023 Page 6 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
12. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
MAY 02, 2026
‘ss’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 11617/2023 Page 7 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50