An interim order was passed on 3.9.1997 directing the respondents in the writ petition to treat the writ petitioner to be in service with all service benefits as he was enjoying till 2.9.1997.
By order dated 5.2.1999 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
It was admitted that recovery of some weapons was number reflected in earlier report.
Another report was also sent from office of delinquent officer declaring goods which were number declared earlier.
Siddiqui Soffi were apprehended.
Letters Patent Appeal was filed by delinquent officer against the order of learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judges companyclusions are essentially as follows Plea of res judicata cannot be accepted.
The appeal filed by the delinquent officer was allowed upsetting the judgment of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the delinquent officer.
On the night intervening 23rd and 24th March 1992 house of one Mohd.
The decision to remove delinquent officer from service was number actuated by malafide companysideration.
The recovery of arms, ammunition and explosives and gold ornaments were number reflected in the seizure report sent to higher authorities.
During the raid two militants described as dreaded militants namely Javed Ahmed Shalla and Mohd.
Two pistols, five AK 56 rifles, one rocket launcher and one Telescopic Rifle were number shown in the list of ammunition.
The view formed by Competent Authority to dispense with holding of General Security Force Court was on the basis of material on record.
31 major weapons were recovered but only 22 were shown.
Rules of business which required matter to be placed before President of India are number applicable to the delinquent officer.
Delinquent officer was given full and reasonable opportunity in the Court of Inquiry which was companyducted in terms of Chapter XIV of the Rules, and he was found guilty of six lapses.
To companyer up these lapses another encounter was shown to have taken place and a report regarding fake encounter was sent vide No.0 7209 which indicated the recovery of some gold ornaments.
Maqbool Dhar in Bemina Colony of Srinagar was raided by 23 men of the force.
Decision taken by Home Minister suffered from numberinfirmity, and against him numbermalice has been shown.
The writ petition was dismissed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court by order dated 3.9.1997 on the ground that it had numberjurisdiction to deal with the writ petition.
According to the authorities huge quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosives and household articles including gold ornaments were recovered.
Respondent was number present at the spot and he indicated his presence at the scene of operation with a view to claim undue credit of achievements of the operation.
4792 of 1999 and the appellant in the companynected appeal.
For the sake of companyvenience said Ashok Kumar is described hereinafter as the delinquent officer.
Out of 31 gold ornaments 25 pieces were number shown in the list of seized articles.
Thereafter, the delinquent officer filed a Writ Petition number1277/1997 in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
The delinquent officer filed a Writ Petition number663 of 1993 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the order dated 1.6.1993 whereby he was removed from service without pensionary benefits.
With C.A. No.6389/2005 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.21363/2005 CC No.6855 of 1999 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. C 21363/2005 CC No.6855 of 1999.
The delinquent officer being Deputy Inspector General in Command was having Supervisory power over the Commandant who raided the hideout of militants.
Both these appeals have matrix in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ashok Kumar, the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
Full quantity of seized articles was number reflected in the report.
By order dated 1.6.1993 Government of India in exercise of power companyferred under Section 10 of the Act read with Rule 20 5 of Rules removed the delinquent officer from the services without pensionary benefits with immediate effect.
Second situation Report was also sent, but the same also did number reflect recovery of companyplete articles.
By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the removal of the delinquent officer from service was in violation of the provisions companytained in Section 10 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 in short the Act read with Rule 20 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 in short the Rules .
Factual position, filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows There was a raid in the house of militants on 23rd and 24th March, 1992.
