{"id":109368,"date":"2011-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-30T09:00:49","modified_gmt":"2016-07-30T03:30:49","slug":"virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                    Judgment Reserved On: 11th July, 2011\n                     Judgment Delivered On: 9th August, 2011\n\n+                          W.P.(C) 1538\/1998\n\n        VIRENDER KUMAR                     ..... Petitioner\n             Through: Mr.Murari Kumar, Advocate\n\n                                versus\n\n        UOI & ORS.                             .....Respondents\n             Through:      Mr.Bhupinder Sharma, Dy.Comdt., BSF\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the\n        Digest?\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.      Appointed as a Constable with Border Security Force
\non 4.08.1986, the petitioner was attached with the 57th Bn.
\nand posted at the Border Out Post (BOP), Ghaniake, Punjab.
\nOn 25.05.1990 a fire broke out in the night in the area
\nwithin the jurisdiction of BOP Ghaniake and spread in the
\nnearby areas and as a result of the fire a consignment of
\narms and ammunitions illegally hidden by either terrorists or
\nsubversive elements caught fire and there were blasts.
\nSeveral terrorists\/subversive elements were arrested and
\nthe next day i.e. on 26.5.1990 a search operation was<\/p>\n
    W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                              Page 1 of 15<\/span>
\n carried out at which pistols and explosives, scattered
\naround in the area, were recovered and seized.\n<\/p>\n
2.   It is the case of the respondents that in March 1991
\ninformation was received that a BSF personnel had been
\napprehended with an unauthorized pistol by the Punjab
\nPolice, which pistol was of Chinese make and was of the
\nsame make and kind as were the pistols recovered and
\nseized on 26.5.1990.     Pursuant to said information, an
\ninquiry was conducted by the intelligence branch and during
\ninquiry Ct.Kamaljit Singh (of BSF), made a confession that
\nduring the search operations conducted on 26.05.1990, he
\nhad illegally not entered recovery of 2 pistols which were
\nrecovered during the search operations and did not seize
\nthe same and that 1 said pistol was handed over by him to
\nthe petitioner and the other to L\/Nk. Gurmeet Singh. At the
\ninquiry it transpired that the pistol handed over to L\/Nk.
\nGurmeet Singh was in turn handed over by him to HC
\nSurjeet Singh and that the pistol which was handed over to
\nthe petitioner was in turn handed over by him to his relative
\nRamesh Kumar who resided in village Khashkhash. It also
\ntranspired that there were other constables of BSF who did
\nnot seize all the pistols which were recovered during search
\noperations on 26.5.1990. The names of 7 constables of BSF
\nsurfaced as the culprits and needless to state, 1 of them
\nwas the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3.   It is obvious that it was the duty of BSF jawans, who
\nrecovered arms and ammunitions illegally brought within
\ntheir territory of operation, to seize the same and deposit
\nthe seized articles with the appropriate authority. The said<\/p>\n
 W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                              Page 2 of 15<\/span>
\n arms and ammunitions had obviously to be forfeited to the
\nState and thus it can safely be said that the arms and
\nammunitions seized were the property of the State.\n<\/p>\n
4.     The said 7 BSF jawans, which includes the petitioner,
\nwere    charged    of    having   committed      the   offence    of
\ndishonestly misappropriating government property i.e. the
\npistols, for which the Commandant conducted a hearing of
\ncharge on 7.12.1991 in accordance with Rule 45-B of the
\nBSF Rules 1969.         Relevant would it be to note that the
\nproceedings pertaining to the hearing of the charge have
\nbeen typed written and after signing, the Commandant has
\nrecorded the date 7.12.1991, but while typing the date has
\nbeen typed: \u201f19.12.1991\u201f and this appears to be the reason
\nwhy in the writ petition it is pleaded that hearing of the
\ncharge took place on 19.12.1991.           We are recording said
\nfact, not because any controversy was raised thereon, but
\nto remove any confusion with respect to the date.\n<\/p>\n
5.     After   hearing     the    charge    on   7.12.1991       the
\nCommandant directed, as noted hereinabove, that Record of
\nEvidence be prepared and appointed 2-IC Harpal Singh as
\nthe recording officer to prepare the Record of Evidence, and
\na joint record of evidence was prepared by him in which
\nproceedings 7 persons, including the petitioner participated
\nand were given an opportunity to cross-examine the
\nwitnesses and make statements in defence.\n<\/p>\n
6.     6 witnesses were examined at the Record of Evidence
\nand since statement of only 1 is relevant for the petitioner,
\ni.e. of Witness No.5 Sh.B.S.Jamwal, Assistant Commandant,
\nwe may briefly note the same for the reason an argument<\/p>\n
 W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                    Page 3 of 15<\/span>
\n was advanced before us that there are discrepancies in
\nwhat he stated during Record of Evidence and during the
\ntrial.    He stated that in the 2nd week of March 1990 the
\nCommandant 115th Bn. informed him that Ct.Harvinder
\nSingh of the 57th Bn. was apprehended by Punjab Police
\nupon being found to be in possession of a pistol and he had
\nnamed 5 other BSF officers as the ones who also illegally
\npossessed pistols which were recovered during search
\noperations on 26.5.1990 but were not deposited with the
\nauthority concerned. The BSF personnel named by him were
\nCt.Sharanjeet Singh, Ct.Kamaljit Singh, L\/Nk.Gurmeet Singh,
\nCt.Harpal Singh and one constable who was a resident of
\nthe State of Bihar, but whose name he could not remember.
\nHe i.e. Assistant Commandant B.S.Jamwal was asked to
\ninvestigate the matter and he interrogated the persons
\nnamed and during interrogation Ct.Kamaljit Singh made a
\nconfession that during the search operation on 26.05.1990
\nhe had picked up 2 pistols, one of which he gave to the
\npetitioner. The petitioner too made a confessional statement
\nwherein he admitted having received the pistol from
\nCt.Kamaljit Singh and informed that he had kept the pistol in
\nvillage    Khashkhash,      U.P.   wherefrom      the   pistol     was
\nrecovered at the instance of the petitioner from the
\npossession of one Ramesh Kumar on 7.4.1991.\n<\/p>\n
7.       Not   being   relevant    qua   the   petitioner,    ignoring
\nstatements made by other persons implicating the other
\npersons, suffice would it be to note that the Record of
\nEvidence was placed before the Commandant of the Unit
\nand considering the same the Commandant directed that all<\/p>\n
  W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                       Page 4 of 15<\/span>
\n persons against whom incriminating evidence had surfaced
\nshould be tried at a Summary Security Force Court.\n<\/p>\n
8.   A Charge Sheet dated 25.1.1993 was issued to all the
\naccused, including the petitioner, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                        “CHARGE SHEET<\/p>\n
     No.68588539        Surjeet Singh    Accused     57 Bn
\n         Head                             No.1        BSF
\n      Constable<\/p>\n
     No.81001397          Gurmeet        Accused    34 Bn
\n         L\/Nk              Singh          No.2        BSF
\n                                                   attached
\n                                                    with 57
\n                                                    Bn BSF
\n     No.86005341          Kamaljit       Accused    57 Bn
\n      Constable            Singh          No.3        BSF<\/p>\n
     No.86008153          Virender       Accused    32 Bn
\n     Mtd\/Constable         Kumar          No.4        BSF
\n                                                   attached
\n                                                    with 57
\n                                                    Bn BSF
\n     No.71577103        Laxmi Narain     Accused    41 Bn
\n         L\/Nk                             No.5        BSF
\n                                                   attached
\n                                                    with 57
\n                                                    Bn BSF
\n     No.89008025          Sharanjit      Accused    57 Bn
\n      Constable            Singh          No.6        BSF<\/p>\n
     No.87007299         Anant Ram       Accused     57 Bn
\n      Constable            Dass           No.7        BSF<\/p>\n
                    are charged with:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     First charge            DISHONESTLY\n     (Against                MISAPPROPRATING PROPERTY\n     accused No.1            BELONGING     TO     THE\n     to      accused         GOVERNMENT\n     No.4 only)\n\n W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                Page 5 of 15<\/span>\n                        In that they,\n                       jointly near BOP Ghaniake. On\n                       26th     May    1990      while\n                       performing the duty of the\n                       search of the area, dishonestly\n                       misappropriated two pistols\n                       having     body    Registration\n                       Nos.31049910 and 31058115,\n                       the property belonging to the\n                       Government.\n\n   Second Charge       DISHONESTLY\n   (Against            MISAPPROPRIATED PROPERTY\n   accused No.5        BELONGING          TO      THE\n   only)               GOVERNMENT\n                       In that he,\n                       near BOP Ghaniake. On 26th\n                       May 90, while performing the\n                       duty of the search of the area,\n                       dishonestly     misappropriated\n                       one     pistol,  the   property\n                       belonging to the Government.\n\n\n   Third Charge        DISHONESTLY\n   (Against            MISAPPROPRIATING PROPERTY\n   accused No.6        BELONGING      TO     THE\n   only)               GOVERNMENT.\n\n                       In that he,\n                       near BOP Ghaniake, on 26th\n                       May 1990 while performing\n                       the duty of the search of the\n                       area,             dishonestly\n                       misappropriated one pistol,\n                       the property belonging to the\n                       Government.\n\n   Fourth Charge       DISHONESTLY\n   (Against            MISAPPROPRIATING PROPERTY\n   accused No.7        BELONGING      TO     THE\n   only)               GOVERNMENT.\n\n                       In that he,\nW.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                           Page 6 of 15<\/span>\n                                near BOP Ghaniake. On 26th\n                               May 1990, while performing\n                               the duty of the search of the\n                               area,             dishonestly\n                               misappropriated one pistol\n                               Body Registration No.7160,\n                               the property belonging to the\n                               Government.\n\n                                                    Sd\/-\n                                               25-01-93\n                                          (CHANDGI RAM)\n                                           COMMANDANT\n                                              57 BN BSF\n      Place : Roshanbagh (WB)\n      Dated, the 25 Jan, 1993\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
9.    At the trial all the accused, including the petitioner,
\npleaded \u201eGuilty\u201f; however in view of the nature of the
\noffence the Court deemed it necessary, to convert the plea
\nof guilt into \u201eNot Guilty\u201f and proceed with the trial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.   7 witnesses were examined at the trial and no
\nevidence was led in defence by the petitioner.                 From
\namongst the 7 prosecution witnesses, only PW-4, PW-5, PW-
\n6 and PW-7 would be relevant for the instant petition
\ninasmuch as of the 7 persons put up for trial and found
\nguilty, only petitioner is before us in the instant petition.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Dy.Comdt.     K.L.Negi    PW-4,   deposed   that    on    the
\nintervening night of 25\/26.05.1990 he heard a blast and
\nintermittent firing in the area around BOP Ghanaike. The
\nnext day the area was searched by a search party and
\nseveral arms and ammunition were found lying scattered
\nwhich were seized as entered in the various seizure memos
\nand the arms and ammunitions were deposited at the<\/p>\n
  W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                   Page 7 of 15<\/span>
\n Battalion Headquarter.   He stated that the petitioner was
\nnot a member of the search party.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Dy.Comdt. B.R.Barmola PW-5, corroborated PW-4 and
\nadditionally deposed that after he returned from his leave in
\nApril 1991, Sub.B.S.Jamwal (now Assistant Commandant)
\ninformed him that pistols were misappropriated from the
\nones seized during the search on 26.05.1990, 1 of which
\nwas recovered by the Punjab Police from a BSF officer, 1
\nwas recovered from Ct.Anant Ram Das, 1 from a Constable
\n(Mounted) and 1 from Ajnala.\n<\/p>\n
13.   It may be noted that from amongst the accused
\npersons, only the petitioner was holding the post of
\nConstable (Mounted).\n<\/p>\n
14.   Asst.Cmdt. B.S.Jamwal PW-6 deposed that in the 2nd
\nweek of March 1990 the Commandant of the 115th Bn.
\ninformed him that Ct.Harvinder Singh of 57 th Bn. was
\napprehended by the Punjab Police and was found in
\npossession of a pistol. Said constable named 4 other BSF
\nofficers; namely, Ct.Sharanjeet Singh, Ct.Kamaljit Singh,
\nL\/Nk.Gurmeet Singh, Ct.Harpal Singh and a constable from
\nBihar, whose name he could not remember, as the ones who
\nhad similar pistols in their possession. He i.e. PW-6 was
\nasked to investigate into the matter and interrogate the
\npersons named and during the course of the interrogation
\nCt.Kamaljit Singh made a confession that during the search
\noperation on 26.05.1990 he had illegally retained 2 pistols 1
\nof which he gave to the petitioner. He i.e. PW-6 interrogated
\nthe petitioner who admitted that he had received a pistol
\nfrom Ct.Kamaljit Singh and stated that he gave the same to<\/p>\n
 W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                              Page 8 of 15<\/span>
\n a relative in village Khashkhash, Uttar Pradesh. He i.e. PW-6,
\naccompanied by an investigating party as also the petitioner
\nwent to the Village Khashkhash and recovered a pistol
\nbearing number 31053115, of Chinese origin, from the
\nhouse of a civilian named Ramesh Kumar. The said pistol
\nwas seized vide memo Ex.-\u201eF\u201f in the presence of 2
\nindependent witnesses and the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
15.   On being cross-examined by the petitioner he stated
\nthat on reaching the village, petitioner\u201fs relative, Ramesh
\nKumar, was found in the fields where he disclosed that he
\nhad sold the pistol to 2 other civilians, from whom the pistol
\nwas recovered. That upon Ramesh Kumar identifying the
\npistol to be the one he had sold, the pistol was seized on
\n7.04.1991. That he i.e. PW-6 had appraised the SHO of
\nGango Police Station but could not get an FIR registered
\nsince he left early morning with his party on 8.04.1991.\n<\/p>\n
16.   We note that the last question put to the witness had
\nan incriminating tinge to it and so we reproduce the
\nquestion and answer for the sake of better understanding:-\n<\/p>\n
      Ques.6. Did not you receive Rupees 40,000(Forty
\n      thousand) on 7th April 1991 evening from my
\n      relative Ramesh Kumar assuring him that no FIR will
\n      be lodged against him?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Ans.6. It is wrong that I had received Rs.40,000
\n      (Forty Thousand) from his relative Ramesh Kumar
\n      on 7th April 1991, SI Mukhtiar Singh of the party who
\n      had   gone    with   me   was   also   present    there
\n      throughout and who had seized the pistol.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                  Page 9 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
 17.   SI Mohan Singh PW-7 corroborated PW-4 that the
\npetitioner was not a member of the search party on
\n26.5.1990.\n<\/p>\n
18.   The Summary Security Force Court returned a verdict
\nof guilt against the petitioner as also the others and vide
\norder dated 16.07.1993 sentenced the petitioner to be
\ndismissed from service. It be noted here that not all accused
\nwere awarded the penalty of dismissal from service. 3
\naccused were awarded penalty of reduction in rank keeping
\nin view that their past service was not only exemplary but
\nthey had earned reward\/awards and since the petitioner and
\n3 others had a normal service i.e. neither was it exemplary
\nin the past and nor had they earned reward\/awards, penalty
\nof dismissal from service was inflicted.\n<\/p>\n
19.   Petitioner challenged the verdict of guilt and the
\npenalty imposed without availing the remedy provided by
\nSection 117 (2) of the BSF Act 1968 and thus the writ
\npetition being W.P.(C) No.3063\/1994 was disposed of
\ndirecting the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, which
\nhe did but without any success. The statutory petition was
\ndismissed vide order dated 13\/16.06.1997.\n<\/p>\n
20.   Needless to state we have before us the present writ
\npetition challenging the conviction and the sentence dated
\n16.07.1993 as also the order dated 13\/16.06.1997.\n<\/p>\n
21.   At the hearing of the writ petition, with reference to
\nthe general pleadings in the writ petition of proceedings
\nbeing vitiated at the trial as rules were not followed and
\nprinciples of natural justice were violated and the like and in
\nrespect whereof no pleading of fact could be found, learned<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                Page 10 of 15<\/span>
\n counsel for the petitioner restricted submissions to the
\narguments which would be noted and dealt with here-in-
\nafter.\n<\/p>\n
22.      Two points were urged. Firstly that the petitioner was
\nnot a member of the search party on 26.5.1990 and the
\nquestion of his misappropriating the pistol would not arise
\nand secondly that the conviction was based on the sole
\ntestimony of Assistant Commandant B.S.Jamwal which was
\nnot corroborated and was even otherwise contradicted by
\nhis statement made at the Record of Evidence.\n<\/p>\n
23.      The first contention, as urged, is without any logic
\ninasmuch as whether the petitioner was a member of the
\nsearch party or not was irrelevant for the evidence led was
\nthat he illegally received a Chinese make pistol from
\nCt.Kamaljit Singh and surely, as a constable in BSF the
\npetitioner knew that it was illegal to possess a firearm
\nwithout a license.\n<\/p>\n
24.      But, to be fair to the petitioner we must note that the
\ncharge against accused No.1 to 4, which included the
\npetitioner was that while performing the duty of search in
\nthe area on 26.5.1990 they dishonestly misappropriated 2
\npistols     having      body   registration   No.31049910     and
\n31058115, the property belonging to the Government.\n<\/p>\n
25.      Admittedly, even as per the evidence led, petitioner
\nwas not a member of the search party. The evidence led
\nagainst the petitioner was of having received a pistol from
\nCt.Kamaljit Singh, being the one which was recovered, from
\n2 civilians to whom Ramesh Kumar, the relative of the
\npetitioner, had led Assistant Commandant B.S.Jamwal and<\/p>\n
 W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                 Page 11 of 15<\/span>
\n others and Ramesh Kumar was accessed upon information
\ngiven by the petitioner.   We may highlight that the pistol
\nrecovered bears registration No.31058115.\n<\/p>\n
26.   Now, we have already observed hereinabove, that the
\nsmuggled pistols of Chinese origin, upon recovery by BSF
\njawans were required to be deposited with a Government
\nAuthority and in law the same have to be treated as the
\nproperty of the Government. The person who recovered the
\nsame, while discharging his duties, would be deemed to
\nhave come in possession of the pistols on behalf of the
\nGovernment and by not depositing the same with the
\nauthority   concerned,     would   be    deemed     to   have
\nmisappropriated the same.       To that extent, there is no
\nambiguity in the charge.      But, the petitioner having not
\nrecovered or seized the pistol during search operation, but
\ncame in possession through Ct.Kamaljit Singh, would at
\nleast be guilty of dishonestly receiving a pistol knowing that
\nit was dishonestly misappropriated by Ct.Kamaljit Singh.\n<\/p>\n
27.   It is settled law that where there is a technical defect
\nin the language of the charge, but it is correctly understood
\nby the person concerned, the trial would not be vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
28.   The very fact that the petitioner has neither pleaded,
\nnor has the counsel argued as above, is proof of the fact
\nthat the petitioner clearly understood that the charge
\nagainst him was of dishonestly appropriating a pistol which
\nwas recovered during search operations and was the
\nproperty of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
29.   Thus, we find no misdirected trial on account of a
\nmisdirected charge framed.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                               Page 12 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
 30.   As regards the argument that the conviction could not
\nbe based on the uncorroborated testimony of Asst. Cmdt.
\nB.S.Jamwal PW-6, we would only observe that even at a
\ncriminal trial it is permissible to rest a conviction on the
\nuncorroborated testimony of a witness if the testimony is
\nfound creditworthy and at a Summary Security Force Court
\nTrial, same principle would apply.\n<\/p>\n
31.   The second limb on which testimony of Asst.Cmdt.
\nB.S.Jamwal was attacked was that there were contradictions
\nin his statement recorded during Record of Evidence and at
\nthe trial. No such contradictions specifically was pointed out
\nsave and except to pick up sentences not spoken of at the
\nstage of Record of Evidence and for which we may only
\nobserve that at the trial Asst.Cmdt. B.S.Jamwal has spoken
\nmore graphically and during Record of Evidence had spoken
\na little telegraphically.    There are no contradictions or
\nimprovements.\n<\/p>\n
32.   Now, the recovery of pistol with butt No.31058115 was
\nnot disputed before us and from the testimony of Asst.Cmdt.
\nB.S.Jamwal we have proof that the pistol was recovered
\nafter Ct.Kamaljit Singh told that he had handed over to the
\npetitioner   1   pistol   recovered   by   him   during   search
\noperations and upon interrogation petitioner told Asst.Cmdt.
\nB.S.Jamwal that he had handed over the pistol to his relative
\nRamesh Kumar who resided in village Khashkhash U.P. and
\nled B.S.Jamwal to said village where Ramesh Kumar was
\nfound in the fields and he told B.S.Jamwal that he had sold
\nthe pistol to two other civilians and he took B.S.Jamwal to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                 Page 13 of 15<\/span>
\n the said civilians who produced the pistol which was seized
\nand entered in the memo Ex.\u201eF\u201f.\n<\/p>\n
33.   There is sufficient evidence wherefrom the complicity
\nof the petitioner can be inferred. We may now highlight the
\nrelevance of question No.6 put by the petitioner to
\nAsst.Cmdt. B.S.Jamwal during cross-examination and the
\nanswer thereto, both of which have been extracted by us in
\npara 16 above.         The question is an admission by the
\npetitioner that the pistol in question was recovered from his
\nrelative Ramesh Kumar.       Though not relevant, but just by
\nthe way, we may note that the petitioner did not even
\ndesire evidence to be led as he has pleaded guilty to the
\ncharge but in view of the seriousness of the charge, the
\nCourt rightly opined that the plea of guilt should be ignored
\nand the department\/prosecution be called upon to prove the
\nindictment.\n<\/p>\n
34.   Indeed, a BSF constable ought to know that nobody
\ncan possess a firearm without a license.         We remind
\nourselves that the incident took place in the year 1990
\nwhen terrorism had not been fully overcome in the State of
\nPunjab.   Arms and ammunitions hidden by terrorists at
\nGhaniake Punjab caught fire and at the search operation the
\nnext day unexploded ammunition and arms were recovered.
\nSome members of the search party illegally retained a few
\npistols. Petitioner became the recipient of one such pistol.
\nHe knew the gravity of the illegal act committed by him.\n<\/p>\n
35.   Though no specific argument was advanced that a
\ndiscriminatory penalty has been levied, with 3 out of 7
\njawans being inflicted with the punishment of reduction in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                               Page 14 of 15<\/span>
\n rank and the other 4 being dismissed from service, we may
\nnote that the 3 who were dismissed were constables and
\nthe question of they being reduced in rank does not arise as
\nthey were at the lowest rung.        Secondly, what led the
\ndepartment to levy a lesser penalty on the 3 jawans was
\ntheir long and exemplary service and the said persons
\nhaving    earned    awards\/rewards   and   the   4   who   were
\ndismissed from service had no such past exemplary service
\nand had earned neither an award nor a reward.\n<\/p>\n
36.    That apart, for the illegal act committed by the
\npetitioner, keeping in view that he was a member of a
\ndisciplined para military force, a service which can brook no
\ndeviant behaviour and especially if the same relates to the
\nillegal possession of a firearm, we do not find the penalty
\nlevied upon the petitioner to be disproportionate.\n<\/p>\n
37.    We dismiss the writ petition but refrain from imposing
\nany costs keeping in view that the petitioner is without a
\njob.\n<\/p>\n
                             (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
\n                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                 (SUNIL GAUR)
\n                                     JUDGE
\nAUGUST 09, 2011
\nmm<\/p>\n
 W.P.(C) No.1538\/1998                                Page 15 of 15<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: 11th July, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: 9th August, 2011 + W.P.(C) 1538\/1998 VIRENDER KUMAR ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Murari Kumar, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. …..Respondents […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVirender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-30T03:30:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-30T03:30:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3245,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-30T03:30:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-30T03:30:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-30T03:30:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"wordCount":3245,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011","name":"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-30T03:30:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Virender Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109368","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109368"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109368\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}