W.P.(C)/3064/2026 of AJIT KUMAR SINGH THROUGH SMT. POONAM SINGH WIFE AND PAIROKAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 1 of 12
$~178
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 30.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 3064/2026 CM APPL. 14864/2026
AJIT KUMAR SINGH THROUGH SMT. POONAM SINGH
WIFE AND PAIROKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arjun Pawar and Mr. Prahil
Sharma, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Swati R.K., CGSC with Ms.
Dumni Soren, GP, and Mr. Mohnish
Balu, Advocate alongwith Mr. Amit
Kumar Singh, DC (Law)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of Order
dated May, 2025 whereby Internal Complaint
Committee was re-constituted; the Findings and
Opinion of the ICC dated 26.05.2025; Remarks of the
IG, Ftr HQ BSF, Punjab vide letter dated 26.05.2025;
order for convening ROE dated 30.07.2025;
chargesheet dated 12.01.2026 issued against the
Petitione1'l order dated 12.01.2026 for convening
GSFC against the Petitioner and Findings and
sentence passed against the Petitioner
(Uncommunicated);
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents
to reconstitute the Internal Complaints Committee in
terms of Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 2 of 12
at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013 and thereafter to re-conduct the inquiry
afresh into the alleged misconduct thereby affording
all the protections to the Petitioner as afforded unde r
the relevant provisions of law pertaining to the said
subject.”
2. The petitioner in this petition seeks quashing of order of May, 2025
whereby the Internal Complaint Committee (“ICC”) was reconstituted ; the
quashing of the findings and opinion of the ICC dated 26.05 .2025; the
remarks of the IG, Ftr HQ, BSF, Punjab vide letter dated 26.05.2025; t he
order of convening Record of Evidence (“RoE”) dated 30.07.2025 an d
charge-sheet dated 12.01.2026. The petitioner also seeks setti ng aside of
order dated 12.01.2026 which was for convening the General Security Force
Court (“GSFC”) against the petitioner along with the findings and the
sentence passed therein. The petitioner has also sought reconsti tution of the
ICC in terms of Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”)
for holding a fresh enquiry.
3. Mr. Arjun Pawar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner stated that the petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector (GD) on
29.07.2013 and upon completing his training, he was posted to 58th Battalion
where he remained posted apart from his tenure as Instructor in TC&S
Hazari Bagh from 2018 to 2023. It was in November, 2023 that the
petitioner was posted back to the 58 th Battalion, which was located in
Madhopur, Pathankot, Punjab. Mr. Pawar has stated that the petitioner has a
good record in terms of professionalism and discipline, which can be seen
from the service record.
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 3 of 12
4. He stated that during the petitioner’s tenure in the 58 th Battalion, he
was posted as an Officiating Company Commander at Border Outpost, Tash.
During December, 2024 to January, 2025, there was acute shortage of
resources. There were frequent power outages due to which the floodli ghts
installed at the border went out. The reason for overloading of the fuse
which resulted in the power shortages was due to the personal appliances
used by the Company personnel and it was decided that all heati ng
appliances were to be seized, which were to be returned once th e winter was
over.
5. According to Mr. Pawar, an incident took place on 14.01.2025 wh en
it had been instructed by the authorities that in case of dense fog the
personnel who are deployed at the border shall carryout effective pa trolling.
Those who are deployed in the LCTS room shall patrol the DHUSSI area
since the visibility of the cameras installed at the border is low during such
period. He insists that this background is crucial to establis h the
circumstances in which the incident took place. In the interven ing night of
13-14.01.2025, the petitioner after completing his patrolli ng duty reached
back the BOP, however, he did not see the Sentry who was assigned du ty at
the LCTS room, and who was supposed to be patrolling the DH USSI area
due to the dense fog. When he reached the LCTS room even after knocking
the door, he received no answer and upon opening the door, h e saw the
Mahila Constable sleeping on duty. After which the petitioner tap ped on the
table on which she was resting her head but no response was received and he
caught hold of her jacket and tugged at her jacket to wake her up. It was then
that the petitioner found out that it was the complainant, wh o was on duty at
that time. It is his case that the petitioner vehemently reproached the
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 4 of 12
complainant as she was deployed in the LCTS room, which is the nodal
point where all the camera recordings were being monitored. It i s his case
that the complainant was new in service and the same is confirm ed by the
ICC proceedings as well as the GSFC that she is shy in nature and neither
bold nor outspoken in her deposition. When the petitioner scolded her for
dereliction of duty, it had overwhelmed the complainant. The pet itioner
resorted to consoling her, after which the petitioner instructed the
complainant to resume her duty by patrolling the DHUSSI area. It was after
two days from the incident i.e. 16.01.2025, the petitioner received
information from other personnel that the complainant had fil ed a complaint
against him, which is why the petitioner asked the complai nant to meet him
so that he could clarify his stance and the complainant agreed for the same.
6. He stated that the petitioner met the complainant outside his office in
the presence of M/Ct. Sushmita Dey and at the same time, the complaina nt
started voice recording on her phone so as to keep a record o f the
conversation between them. He stated that it is clear from t he recording that
the petitioner was trying to apologise for anything which c ould be construed
as inappropriate. According to him, the petitioner was not co nfrontational
but only tried to apologise for anything which may have been perceived as
inappropriate. It was thereafter in January, 2025 that the respon dents
forwarded the complaint to the ICC, and the proceedings were conducted for
over a month. However, the same was annulled by the Competent Auth ority
as the composition of the ICC was not in terms of Section 4 of th e POSH
Act as the Presiding Officer of the ICC was a male. The ICC was then
reconstituted vide order of May, 2025 issued on behalf of the D IG, SHQ,
BSF, Gurdaspur. The composition of the subsequent ICC was as under:-
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 5 of 12
S.
No.
Name Particulars Designation
1. Dr. Chhering Dikit Assistant Commander
(veterinary cadre)
Presiding Officer
2. Aruna Devi Head Constable
(Ministerial)
Clerical/Ministerial
Staff
3. Santosh Kumari C/o Rani Jhasi Ladies
Welfare Society,
Gurdaspur (Punjab
Co-opted Member
7. The newly constituted ICC conducted the enquiry as per POSH Act
and the Border Security Forces Act, 1968 (“ BSF Act ”) and issued its
findings and opinion dated 26.05.2025 wherein the petition er was found to
be blameworthy of misconduct and disciplinary action was recomm ended to
be taken against him. The findings and opinion of the ICC were approved by
the IG, Ftr, HQ BSF, Punjab wherein he directed that the disciplinary act ion
be taken against the petitioner and that the petitioner be po sted out from his
battalion. Pursuant to the remarks of the IG, the Commandant issued order
dated 30.07.2025 for convening the ROE against the petitioner . The ROE
was concluded when the certificate dated 31.08.2025 was issued. Pursuant to
the conclusion of the ROE vide order dated 12.01.2026, it was directed that
the GSFC be convened against the petitioner. The charge-shee t was issued
on the same date i.e., 12.01.2026. The GSFC was convened durin g the
period of 17.01.2026 to 17.02.2026, which announced its fin dings and
sentence. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, preferred a pre-
confirmation appeal dated 23.02.2026 under Section 117(1) of the BSF Act.
After which, the petitioner approached this Court vide this petition on the
grounds that the ICC was constituted contrary to the POSH Act; t he ICC
proceedings were rife with procedural lapses and were conducted against the
principles of natural justice. He further stated that there was a lack of
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 6 of 12
quorum as the ICC was supposed to be constituted of four members whereas
it only had three members and furthermore, the members of the ICC did no t
have a requisite legal experience to conduct the proceedings.
8. According to Mr. Pawar, coram non judice is alone a ground to vitiate
the proceedings. He has also referred to the voice recordings to st ate that the
petitioner is not guilty of the act as suggested. In support of his case, he has
relied upon various judgments as under:-
i. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai ,
(1998) 8 SCC 1 , State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, 1957 SCC
OnLine SC 21 , Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation,
(2003) 2 SCC 107 and M.P. State Agro Industries Development
Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Jhan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88 to state that an
existence of an alternative remedy does not bar to writ jurisdiction.
ii. He has relied upon the judgement in the case of S.J.S. Business
Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 166 to
argue that invoking of an alternative remedy is not a bar to wri t
jurisdiction which is sought to be invoked subsequently.
iii. Dr. Shyam Bihari v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., 2025
SCC OnLine Bom 4025 , Vidya Vikas Mandal & Anr v. Education
Officer & Anr., (2007) 11 SCC 352 , Ravi Malik v. National Film
Development Corpn, Ltd & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 427 and Ruchika
Singh Chhabra v. M/s. Air France India and Anr.,
2018:DHC:3592-DB have been relied upon to assert that composition
of the ICC under Section 4 of the POSH Act suffers from coram non
judice.
iv. Surendra Kumar v. UOI & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5568 to
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 7 of 12
advance the proposition that there has been a violation of proced ural
safeguard before convening the GSFC inasmuch as Rule 45 of the
BSF Rules confers a discretionary power to the Commandant to
discharge the an accused on lack of material on record to establis h
guilt and also giving due regard to the nature of the allegat ions and
previous conduct of the accused.
v. Union of India and Ors. v. Major A. Hussain, 1998 (1) SCC 357,
Union of India & Ors. v. L.D. Balam Singh, 2002 (9) SCC 73 has
been referred to argue that the respondents cannot contest that since
the petitioner is a member of a uniformed force he cannot be placed
on the same footing as the personnel in the Central Civil Serv ices and
the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is no express statutory
bar to that effect and that such protection ought to be extend ed to
petitioner.
vi. Amit Kumar v. Bharati College (University of Delhi) & Ors.,
W.P.(C) 5486/2018 dated 21.05.2018 has been referred to, for the
proposition that the ICC proceedings were contrary to the princi ples
of natural justice as the complainant was unaware of the opti on to
press for conciliation in the present case.
vii. A reference has also been made to the judgement in the case of Dr.
Amit Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., 2025:DHC:9243-DB to
claim that the findings of the ICC which comprises of a chairp erson
who is a man ought not to be given effect to.
viii. Judgements in the cases of Abrar Ali v. CISF & Ors., Civil Appeal
No. 6020/2012 dated 24.08.2012 , Sumit Kumar v. Union of India &
Ors., W.P.(C) No. 96/2017 dated 29.03.2017 and Sunil Kumar v. The
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 8 of 12
Director General- S.S.B & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 3983/2022 dated
18.03.2025 have been relied upon to assert that this Court has
territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
ix. The judgment in Union of India & another v. Ex.No.3192684
W.Sep. Virendera Kumar, (2020)2 SCC 714 has also been relied
upon against the order of the General Court Martial in the conte xt of
Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 as applicable to the petit ioner as
he is also part of a uniformed Force.
9. Ms. Swati R.K., learned Central Government Standing Counsel on
behalf of the respondents has relied on the findings of the ICC dated
26.05.2025 to state that the petitioner had found the complai nant Constable
sleeping, woke her up but did not take any action against her fo r this,
however, he initiated a conversation with her and held her hand and when
she took herself back, the petitioner pulled the com plainant’s jacket towards
him, which made the complainant feel uncomfortable. In addition to this, the
petitioner also offered to make a personal friendship with her and gave his
mobile number to her with directions to contact him through call, message
and/or WhatsApp. Further, on the same day, at around 1400 hours, when the
complainant was performing her duties, the petitioner came there to as k her
why she had not called him. After which, he made calls through the
intercom with the intention to talk with the complainant an d stated that he
will confirm the leave of her roommate only when the complaina nt accepts
to be friends with the petitioner.
10. On 16.01.2025, the petitioner called the complainant to ha ve a
conversation with her and the same was recorded and it could be gathered
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 9 of 12
from the same that he continuously apologised to the complai nant. He
further mentioned specific ingredients of the complaint dated 17.01.2025
while apologising to her from which it can be gathered that he knew about
the elements of the complaint before the same was lodged. As per t he ICC
report, it can be inferred that the women Constable may have initi ally been
annoyed given the directions for removing personal heaters, but this
argument of a conspiracy against the petitioner does not stand si nce there
were no subsequent disobedience by any of the women Constables .
However, the petitioner kept apologising and tried to influ ence the
complainant to take back the complaint and make an excuse for s uch
withdrawal. More so, the ICC report came to a clear finding that t he
petitioner tried to misuse his official position and his acts show a character
unbecoming of a Subordinate Officer and ICC recommended that
appropriate disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner.
11. Ms. Swati would submit that pursuant to the findings of t he ICC
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide letter dated
26.05.2025 issued by the IG Ftr HQ BSF, Punjab after which RoE was
issued dated 30.07.2025 and the pursuant thereto chargesheet was issued on
12.01.2026. The order for convening the GFSC was also issued on the same
date i.e., 12.01.2026. She has also drawn our attention to Annex ure P-9 of
the petition which is a certificate stating that the RoE was recorded in the
presence and hearing of the accused/petitioner under the provisio ns of Rule
48 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (“Rules”).
12. Mr. Pawar in his rejoinder submissions has argued that the
chargesheet along with the findings and sentence of the GSFC be quashed as
the sentence as well as the findings have not been communicat ed to the
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 10 of 12
petitioner.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the short issue which
arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled t o the reliefs as
prayed for in the petition inasmuch as whether the order dated 26.05.2025 of
the ICC and charge-sheet dated 12.01.2026 and also order date d 12.01.2026
for convening GSFC and further the findings of the GSFC are liable to be
set aside.
14. The grounds for challenging the same can be seen from the petiti on
and also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the constitution of
the ICC is hit by principle of coram non judice; the proceedings, which have
been held by the ICC are in violation of principles of natural justice,
impairing the fairness behind the decision to convene GSFC. So in that
sense, the present case strikes at the procedural fairness of ent ire
proceedings and as such, liable to be set aside. There is no di spute that the
petitioner has filed a pre-confirmation petition, which is pen ding decision
before the concerned Authority and hence, in that sense, the very fi nding of
the GSFC are pending consideration before the concerned Authority, the
counsel for the respondents is justified in stating that t he present petition is
pre-mature.
15. On a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whet her
the grounds urged by the petitioner in this petition hav e been taken in the in
the pre-confirmation petition, the answer is in affirmative. If t hat be so,
surely, it is expected that the Authority considering the p re-confirmation
petition shall consider all the pleas, which have been urged by the petitioner
in the pre-confirmation petition and accordingly pass a reasoned order. In
fact, we have been informed that after pre-confirmation petition is d ecided,
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 11 of 12
the petitioner has a remedy of post-confirmation as well un der Rule 117(2)
of the BSF Rules.
16. That apart, it is a settled position of law that till such time a final order
is passed in the proceedings of this nature, any interference wit hout waiting
for the final decision on the proceedings by the High Court i n a writ petition
is uncalled for.
17. The judgments for the propositions as highlighted by th e counsel for
the petitioner are concerned, there cannot be any dispute on the s aid
propositions of law but those propositions have to be seen in the facts of the
case. Surely, the facts of this case would not warrant any interference at this
stage by this Court when the findings of the GSFC are yet to be confirmed
by the Authority concerned.
18. In so far as the judgment in the case of L.D. Balam Singh ( supra) is
concerned, a perusal of paragraph 5 thereof reveal that the challenge before
the High Court was for quashing of charge sheet, sentence of the General
Court Martial, order of confirmation of General Officer Commanding an d
also to quash the trial of the General Court Martial.
19. Concedingly, there is no order of confirmation as of today for th is
Court to entertain this writ petition as filed by the petiti oner herein. This is
precisely we have held that the present petition is pre mature. Su rely, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to urge all contentions as and when the finding
of the GSFC are confirmed. Hence, the judgment in the case of L.D. Balam
Singh (supra) is clearly distinguishable alone.
20. In so far as the judgment in the case of Ex.No.3192684 W.Sep.
Virendera Kumar (supra) is concerned, similar is the position in this case as
well in as much as the General Court Martial was held against the
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 3064/2026 Page 12 of 12
respondent therein which convicted him under Section 302 of t he Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and for attempting to commit suicide. The respon dent
was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to be dismiss ed from
service. The statutory complaint filed by the respondent was rejected by the
Chief of the Army Staff. It was the order of the General Court Martial a nd
the order of the Chief Army Staff rejecting the statutory complaint, w hich
were assailed before the Tribunal. It is not such a case herein as the pre-
confirmation petition is still pending consideration before th e authority
concerned. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable in the fact s of this
case.
21. This Court is of the view that no interference is called for against the
orders passed by the respondents, which are challenged in the writ petition.
The petition being without any merit in the facts as it is p remature is
dismissed along with the pending application.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 30, 2026/sr
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.03.2026
15:19:22
Signature Not Verified