{"id":241288,"date":"2001-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001"},"modified":"2017-08-08T10:32:56","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T05:02:56","slug":"sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 6, 96 (2002) DLT 602, 2002 (62) DRJ 361, 2003 (1) SLJ 48 Delhi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Sharma<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  M.K. Sharma, J.   <\/p>\n<p> 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner<br \/>\npraying for quashing and setting aside of the order<br \/>\ndated 3.2.1995 whereby the petitioner was dismissed<br \/>\nfrom service effective from the same date with a<br \/>\nfurther prayer to reinstate the petitioner in<br \/>\nservice with full back wages and allowances.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The petitioner was appointed in BSF on<br \/>\n14.12.1987 against a post of Sub-Inspector. The<br \/>\npetitioner after successful training joined his<br \/>\nduty as Sub-Inspector. He was posted at BSF Sector<br \/>\nHeadquarters (DIG Headquarters) Patgaon, Guwahati<br \/>\nAssam. After one year of service the petitioner<br \/>\nwas transferred to 153 Bn. BSF, Panwari, Dist-Dhubri<br \/>\nAssam where he served for four years. Thereafter<br \/>\nhe was transferred to 79 Bn. BSF at Tura Meghalaya<br \/>\non 28.8.1992 from 153 Btn. BSF. The petitioner,<br \/>\nhowever, reported for duty in 79 Bn. BSF only on<br \/>\n3.10.1992 after absenting for duties for 19 days.<br \/>\nThereafter, he proceeded on 14 days casual leave<br \/>\nw.e.f. 9.12.1992 till 25.12.1992 for the treatment<br \/>\nof his wife. He was to resume his duty on<br \/>\n30.12.1989 but he reported for duty only on<br \/>\n11.1.1993 after over staying for 12 days.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The records also discloses that on<br \/>\narrival from leave the petitioner also brought his<br \/>\nfamily to Bn. Headquarter without seeking any<br \/>\npermission. He also broke open the door of a<br \/>\nGovernment Quarter and started staying with his<br \/>\nfamily without permission of the Competent<br \/>\nAuthority. The petitioner was asked to proceed to<br \/>\nhis Company for Boarder Duty as Platoon Commander.<br \/>\nThe petitioner, however, refused to obey the orders<br \/>\ntwice. The petitioner again left the Unit on<br \/>\n10.2.1993 of his own and remained absent from duty<br \/>\nwithout informing anyone. A letter was issued to<br \/>\nthe petitioner on 27.1.1993 by the respondents to<br \/>\nexplain as to why a disciplinary action should not<br \/>\nbe taken against petitioner for the wrongful<br \/>\noccupation of the quarter. A reply was received<br \/>\nfrom the petitioner against the letter of the<br \/>\nrespondents dated 27.1.1993 which was considered<br \/>\nany rejected by the competent authority.<br \/>\nThereafter, the respondents decided to proceed<br \/>\nagainst him and accordingly charge-sheets were<br \/>\nissued to the petitioner under Section 19(b) of the<br \/>\nBSF Act and Section 21(1) of the BSF Act. In one<br \/>\nof the charge sheets the allegation was that the<br \/>\npetitioner had overstayed the period of leave<br \/>\nwithout sufficient cause and the other of alleged<br \/>\ndisobeying orders of his superiors in such manner<br \/>\nas to show a willful defiance of authorities and<br \/>\nlawful command given by his superior officers. The<br \/>\nrespondents issued two separate orders to Sh.<br \/>\nSarwan Singh, 2 I\/C of the Unit to prepare the<br \/>\nrecords of the Abstract of Evidence in respect of<br \/>\nthe petitioner. The petitioner was supplied copies<br \/>\nof the Abstract of the evidence in regard to charge<br \/>\nunder Section 19(b) of the BSF Act, 1968. The<br \/>\npetitioner submitted a letter of resignation from<br \/>\nservice which, however, was considered and was not<br \/>\naccepted in view of pendency of departmental<br \/>\nproceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner<br \/>\nalso submitted a letter requesting for dropping the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, however,<br \/>\nshow cause notice was issued against the petitioner<br \/>\non 28.11.1994 stating that the trial by a Security<br \/>\nForce Court is impracticable and further retention<br \/>\nin service is undesirable and against the aforesaid<br \/>\nshow cause notice the petitioner filed a reply<br \/>\nwhich was considered by the respondents and a order<br \/>\nwas passed on 3.2.1995 dismissing the petitioner<br \/>\nfrom service. Being aggrieved by the said order<br \/>\nthe petitioner preferred a statutory appeal to the<br \/>\nDirector General, Board Security Force. The<br \/>\naforesaid appeal of the petitioner was rejected by<br \/>\nthe Competent Authority on 28.7.1995 and hence the<br \/>\npresent petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nsubmitted that the requirement and the essential of<br \/>\nthe BSF Rules have not been complied with while<br \/>\nissuing the show cause notice as also while issuing<br \/>\nthe final order passed by the respondents and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the impugned show cause notice as also<br \/>\nthe Final order are liable to be set aside. In<br \/>\nsupport of the aforesaid contention, counsel relied<br \/>\nupon the decision of the Division Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt in   Sees Ram v. Union of India and Ors.,<br \/>\n. It was<br \/>\nalso submitted that although a Court of Inquiry was<br \/>\nheld against the petitioner, no notice of the same<br \/>\nwas given to the petitioner as required under Rule<br \/>\n173(8) of the BSF Rules and, therefore, the<br \/>\nrespondents could not have relied upon the findings<br \/>\nof the said Court of Inquiry while issuing the<br \/>\nimpugned order which also stands vitiated. It was<br \/>\nalso submitted that Rule 22 of the BSF Rules in<br \/>\nterms of which action is being taken by the<br \/>\nrespondents mandates furnishing of the report on<br \/>\nthe basis of which the impugned show cause notice<br \/>\nwas issued and since such report was not supplied<br \/>\nby the respondents Along with the said notice,<br \/>\nconsequent action thereupon is illegal and void.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Counsel appearing for the respondents, I<br \/>\nhowever, refuted the aforesaid allegations and<br \/>\nsubmitted that, the petitioner remained absent from<br \/>\nduties without leave and that communications were<br \/>\nsent to the petition to re-join duties, to which<br \/>\nthe petitioner did not pay any heed to and,<br \/>\ntherefore, as he was absent from duties no trial<br \/>\ncould be held against the petitioner as he was<br \/>\nabsent unauthorisedly and, therefore, the<br \/>\nprovisions of Rule 22 of the BSF Rules became<br \/>\nattracted in the present case. It was submitted<br \/>\nthat the trial having become impractical in view of<br \/>\nthe absence of the petitioner, no error was<br \/>\ncommitted by the respondents in proceeding against<br \/>\nthe petitioner under the aforesaid provisions. It<br \/>\nwas also submitted that all the pre-requisite and<br \/>\nthe essential conditions required to be complied<br \/>\nwith under the said provision were duly complied<br \/>\nwith and, therefore, the allegation is misconceived<br \/>\nand is liable to be rejected. It was also<br \/>\nsubmitted that for holding the Court of Inquiry no<br \/>\nnotice is required to be given and in this<br \/>\nconnection reliance was placed on the provisions<br \/>\nof Section 62 of the BSF Act. It was also<br \/>\nsubmitted that the reports were received about the<br \/>\nunauthorised absence of the petitioner from duty<br \/>\nand the said Fact was intimated by the respondents<br \/>\nto the petitioner in the impugned notice and,<br \/>\ntherefore, there was no necessity of sending any<br \/>\nfurther report as the show cause notice contained<br \/>\nthe substance of the reports received against the<br \/>\npetitioner on the basis of which the impugned show<br \/>\ncause notice was issued to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions<br \/>\nof the counsel appearing for the parties, I<br \/>\nexamined the records of the case and on the basis<br \/>\nthereof proceed to deliver my decision in the case<br \/>\nrecording reasons thereof. The petitioner was<br \/>\nunauthorisedly absent and did not report for duty.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the Court of Enquiry was ordered<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner. On the basis of the result<br \/>\nof the said Court of Inquiry proceedings, show<br \/>\ncause notice was issued to the petitioner stating<br \/>\ntherein that reports relating to his absence from<br \/>\nduties have been received and that the competent<br \/>\nauthority was satisfied that his trial by Security<br \/>\nCourt Force was impracticable and that he was of<br \/>\nthe further opinion that further retention of<br \/>\nservice of the petitioner was undesirable and<br \/>\naccordingly the aforesaid show cause notice was<br \/>\nissued intimating to the petitioner tentative<br \/>\nproposal of dismissal of the petitioner from<br \/>\nservice with a direction to him to place his<br \/>\ndefense against the aforesaid imposition of<br \/>\nproposed penalty. The petitioner submitted his<br \/>\nreply to the aforesaid show cause notice which was<br \/>\nconsidered by the respondents and thereafter the<br \/>\nimpugned order was passed as the said reply of the<br \/>\npetitioner was found to be not satisfactory. As<br \/>\nthe competent authority was satisfied that the<br \/>\npetitioner was absent without any reasonable cause<br \/>\nand that his further retention in service was<br \/>\nundesirable, the impugned order was passed on<br \/>\n3.2.1995 dismissing the petitioner from service<br \/>\nwith effect from the same date.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Counsel appearing for the parties agreed<br \/>\nthat the relevant provisions which would govern the<br \/>\ninstant case is the amended provision of Rule 22 of<br \/>\nthe BSF Rules, which were amended by the Amendment<br \/>\nRules of 1990 and published in the Gazette of India<br \/>\non 1.6.1990. The aforesaid amended provisions of<br \/>\nRule 22 read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;22. Dismissal of removal of persons<br \/>\nother than officers on account of<br \/>\nmisconduct-\n<\/p>\n<p> (1) When it is proposed to terminate the<br \/>\nservice of a person subject to the Act<br \/>\nother than an officer, he shall be given<br \/>\nan opportunity by the authority competent<br \/>\nto dismiss or move him, to show cause<br \/>\nin the manner specified in Sub-rule (2)<br \/>\nagainst such action:-\n<\/p>\n<p> Provided that this sub-rule shall not<br \/>\napply-\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) where the service is terminated on<br \/>\nthe ground of conduct which has led<br \/>\nto his conviction by a criminal<br \/>\ncourt or a Security Force Court; or  <\/p>\n<p> (b) where the competent authority is<br \/>\nsatisfied that, for reasons to be<br \/>\nrecorded in writing, it is not<br \/>\nexpedient or reasonably practicable<br \/>\nto give the person concerned an<br \/>\nopportunity of showing cause.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) When after considering the reports<br \/>\non the mis-conduct of the person<br \/>\nconcerned, the competent authority is<br \/>\nsatisfied that the trial of such a person<br \/>\nis inexpedient or impracticable, but, is<br \/>\nof the opinion that his further retention<br \/>\nin the service is undesirable, it shall<br \/>\nso inform him together with all reports<br \/>\nadverse to him and he shall be called<br \/>\nupon to submit, in writing, his<br \/>\nexplanation and defense:-\n<\/p>\n<p>   Provided that the competent authority may<br \/>\nwith-hold from disclosure any such report<br \/>\nor portion thereof, if, in his opinion<br \/>\nits disclosure is not in the public<br \/>\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n<p> (3) The competent authority after<br \/>\nconsidering his explanation and defense,<br \/>\nif any, may dismiss or remove him from<br \/>\nservice with or without pension:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  Provided that a Deputy Inspector General<br \/>\nshall not dismiss or remove from service,<br \/>\na Subordinate Officer of and above the<br \/>\nrank of a Subedar.\n<\/p>\n<p> (4) All cases of dismissal or removal<br \/>\nunder this rule shall be reported to the<br \/>\nDirector General.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. A reading of the aforesaid provisions<br \/>\nwould indicate that when the competent authority<br \/>\nproposes to terminate the services of a person<br \/>\nsubject to the Act other than an officer, he would<br \/>\nbe given an opportunity by the competent authority<br \/>\nempowered to dismiss or remove him, to show cause<br \/>\nin the manner specified in Sub-rule (2) against<br \/>\nsuch action.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 22 provides that when<br \/>\nafter considering the reports on the mis-conduct of<br \/>\nthe person concerned, the competent authority is<br \/>\nsatisfied that the trial of such a person is<br \/>\ninexpedient or impracticable, but, is of the<br \/>\nopinion that his further retention in the service<br \/>\nis undesirable, it shall so inform him together<br \/>\nwith all reports adverse to him and he shall be<br \/>\ncalled upon to submit, in writing, his explanation<br \/>\nand defense.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 22 provides that the<br \/>\ncompetent authority after considering his<br \/>\nexplanation and defense, if any, may dismiss or<br \/>\nremove him from service with or without pension.<br \/>\nTherefore, a power is vested on the competent<br \/>\nauthority to dismiss or remove a person other than<br \/>\nan officer after complying with the procedure and<br \/>\nthe provisions of Rule 22 of the BSF Rules. The<br \/>\nsaid Rule requires that in an appropriate cause, the<br \/>\ncompetent authority may dispense with the trial if<br \/>\naccording to the said competent authority, the<br \/>\ntrial of such a person is inexpedient or<br \/>\nimpracticable and when he is also of the opinion<br \/>\nthat his further retention in service is<br \/>\nundesirable. When such satisfaction and opinion is<br \/>\narrived at by the competent authority, a show cause<br \/>\nnotice is to be issued to the concerned person<br \/>\nwhere after the order could be passed as against the<br \/>\nsaid person dismissing or removing him from<br \/>\nservice.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. It was contended by the counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the petitioner that when unauthorised absence<br \/>\nis considered as a misconduct under the BSF Act and<br \/>\nRules framed there under, the entire procedure laid<br \/>\ndown for a trial to try an offence for misconduct<br \/>\nis always required to be complied with and followed<br \/>\nand the summary procedure as prescribed under Rule<br \/>\n22 of the BSF Rules cannot be resorted to by the<br \/>\nrespondents. In my considered opinion, the said<br \/>\ncontention cannot be upheld. The power given to<br \/>\nthe competent authority under Section 11(2) of the<br \/>\nBSF Act empowers the competent authority, namely,<br \/>\nthe Commandant to dismiss or remove from service<br \/>\nany person under his command other than an officer<br \/>\nor subordinate officer. The said power read with<br \/>\nRules 22 and 177 of the said Rules is an<br \/>\nindependent power which can be validly exercised by<br \/>\nthe Commandant as prescribed officer and it has<br \/>\nnothing to do with the power of the Security Force<br \/>\nCourt for dealing with the offences such as absence<br \/>\nfrom duty without leave or overstaying leave<br \/>\ngranted to a member of the Force without sufficient<br \/>\ncause and to award punishment for the same. The<br \/>\naforesaid conclusion is by now a settled law in<br \/>\nview of the decision of the Supreme Court in<br \/>\n  <a href=\"\/doc\/1170625\/\">GAURANGA CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF TRIPURA AND<br \/>\nANR.,<\/a>  . In the said<br \/>\ndecision, the Supreme Court held that the services<br \/>\nof the enrolled persons under the BSF Act are<br \/>\ngoverned by the provisions of the Act as well as<br \/>\nthe Rules framed there under and that the power<br \/>\nunder Section 11(2) of the Act empowering the<br \/>\nprescribed authority i.e. the Commandant to<br \/>\ndismiss or remove from service any person under his<br \/>\ncommand than an officer on a subordinate<br \/>\nofficer read with Rule 177 of the said Rules, is an<br \/>\nindependent power which can be validly exercised by<br \/>\nthe Commandant as a prescribed officer and it has<br \/>\nnothing to do with the power of the Security Force<br \/>\nCourt for dealing with the offences and such<br \/>\nabsence from duty without leave on overstaying<br \/>\nleave granted to a member of the Force without<br \/>\nsufficient cause and to award punishment for the<br \/>\nsame. The aforesaid position settled by the<br \/>\nSupreme Court was again reiterated in the decision<br \/>\nof   <a href=\"\/doc\/1264839\/\">Union of India and Ors. v. Ram Phal<\/a>  reported<br \/>\nin 1996 (2) SLR 297. In the aforesaid decision,<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court held that when a show cause<br \/>\nnotice is issued in terms of Section 11 of the BSF<br \/>\nAct read with Rules 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules, no<br \/>\nfurther enquiry was required to be held and when<br \/>\nthe personnel did not reply to the notice and there<br \/>\nwas no denial of the allegations and there was no<br \/>\nrequest to hold an enquiry, then it was not<br \/>\nincumbent upon the Director General to appoint an<br \/>\nenquiry officer to conduct an enquiry in the manner<br \/>\nprescribed by Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. The prescribed procedure was followed<br \/>\nbefore passing the dismissal order and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe order of dismissal was upheld by the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in the aforesaid decision.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nrelied upon the decision of this court in   Ajaib<br \/>\nSingh v. Union of India,  reported in 1997 (4) DRJ<br \/>\n710 as also the decision of Division Bench of this<br \/>\ncourt in   Somvir and Ors. v. Union of India and<br \/>\nOrs.   reported in Vol. 68 1997 DLT 806 and also the<br \/>\ndecision in   Sees Ram v. Union of India   reported<br \/>\nin 1996 (7) SLR 617. In Ajaib Singh&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra), it was found by a Single Judge of this<br \/>\ncourt that no satisfaction was recorded by the<br \/>\ncompetent authority in the said show cause notice<br \/>\nissued that the trial of the petitioner of the said<br \/>\ncase was inexpedient or impracticable and in<br \/>\nabsence of such satisfaction recorded in the show<br \/>\ncause notice, the service of the petitioner could<br \/>\nnot have bene dispensed with in exercise of the<br \/>\npower vested under the provisions of Section 11(2)<br \/>\nof the Act. In the instant case, such satisfaction<br \/>\nthat the trial of the petitioner was inexpedient or<br \/>\nimpracticable, is duly recorded in the show cause<br \/>\nnotice issued to the petitioner and, therefore, the<br \/>\nfacts of the said case are distinguishable with the<br \/>\nfacts of the present case. Therefore, the ratio of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid decision is not applicable in the<br \/>\npresent case. In Somvir&#8217;s case (supra), the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this court held that even an<br \/>\nopinion was not formed by the competent authority<br \/>\nthat it was not feasible to try the petitioner by<br \/>\nSecurity Force Court and in that context it was<br \/>\nheld by the Division Bench that the service of the<br \/>\npetitioner could not have been dispensed with in<br \/>\nexercise of the powers under Section 11(2) of the<br \/>\nAct. The decision of the Division Bench in the<br \/>\ncase of Sees Ram (supra) is also to the same<br \/>\neffect. Thus, it is clearly established that the<br \/>\nfacts of the aforesaid cases are different from the<br \/>\nfacts of the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. In Gouranga Chakraborty&#8217;s case (supra) it<br \/>\nwas held by the Supreme Court that the services of<br \/>\nthe enrolled persons under the BSF Act are governed<br \/>\nby the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules<br \/>\nframed there under and that the power under Section<br \/>\n11(2) of the Act empowering the prescribed<br \/>\nauthority i.e. the Commandant to dismiss or remove<br \/>\nfrom service any person under his command other<br \/>\nthan an officer or a subordinate officer, is an<br \/>\nindependent power which can be validly exercised by<br \/>\nthe Commandant as a prescribed officer after<br \/>\ncomplying with the procedure thereof. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe power of the Commandant to take resort to the<br \/>\npower vested on him under Section 11(2) of the Act<br \/>\nread with Rules 22 and 177 of the Rules, cannot be<br \/>\nquestioned, which is an independent power and could<br \/>\nbe exercised by the competent officer when such<br \/>\naction is called for in a particular case. In the<br \/>\npresent case, the competent authority has recorded<br \/>\nits satisfaction and opinion in the show cause<br \/>\nnotice itself that the petitioner was<br \/>\nunauthorisedly absent from duty and that the trial<br \/>\nby the Security Force Court was inexpedient or<br \/>\nimpracticable and that his further retention in<br \/>\nservice was undesirable. The pre-condition as<br \/>\nmentioned in Rule 22 of the Rules is, therefore,<br \/>\nsatisfied in the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. In the reply submitted to the show cause<br \/>\nnotice the petitioner did not state that he is in<br \/>\nany manner prejudiced in submitting his reply for<br \/>\nwant of any report. He also did not submit any<br \/>\nrequest for furnishing any documents to him. The<br \/>\nreport to which mention is made in the show cause<br \/>\nnotice was only in respect of the fact that the<br \/>\npetitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duties.<br \/>\nThe petitioner himself knew about the said fact<br \/>\nand, therefore, it was not necessary to submit any<br \/>\nreport or document to the petitioner in that<br \/>\nregard. Even, otherwise, since the allegations in<br \/>\nthe report received against the petitioner were<br \/>\nsubstantially communicated to the petitioner, no<br \/>\nprejudice was caused to the petitioner in any<br \/>\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. Therefore, all the contentions of the<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the petitioner are found to<br \/>\nbe without any merit. The preconditions for making<br \/>\nout a case under Section 11 of the BSF Act read<br \/>\nwith Rules 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules have been<br \/>\nsatisfied and were complied with and the entire<br \/>\nprocedure as laid down therein was followed by the<br \/>\nrespondents and, no prejudice was caused to the<br \/>\npetitioner in any manner. In that view of the<br \/>\nmatter no interference is called for to the action<br \/>\nof the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. In the light of the aforesaid<br \/>\nconclusions, I hold that there is no merit in this<br \/>\nwrit petition and the writ petition stands<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 6, 96 (2002) DLT 602, 2002 (62) DRJ 361, 2003 (1) SLJ 48 Delhi Author: M Sharma Bench: M Sharma JUDGMENT M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing [&hellip;]<\/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-241288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-08T05:02:56+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T05:02:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3197,\"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\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001\",\"name\":\"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T05:02:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-08T05:02:56+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T05:02:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001"},"wordCount":3197,"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\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001","name":"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T05:02:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sham-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-6-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sham Lal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 December, 2001"}]},{"@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\/241288","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=241288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241288\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}