TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olled as a member of the Border Security Force [BSF] on 31st December, 2010. At the relevant time, he was posted in the 44th Battalion [44 Bn] While serving at Narayanpur, Malda, in West Bengal, a missing person report concerning one xxx [lady] was received by the Company Commander of 44 Bn on 24th April, 2022. Appellant and another constable of the 44 Bn were suspected to be involved in abduction of the lady. In the meanwhile, the appellant's wife also lodged a complaint. It was alleged that the appellant, against her wishes, had contracted a second marriage with the lady. It was also alleged that the appellant subjected her to criminal force. b) The Sector Headquarters, BSF, Malda, ordered a Staff Court of Inquiry [SCoI] to investigate the allegations. During the inquiry, it was found that the appellant had contracted a second marriage with the lady, who herself was married, during the subsistence of his first marriage on 6th May, 2022. The marriage was also formally registered under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 on 23rd May, 2022 at the office of the Marriage Registration Officer in Kushinagar, District Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, without obtain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eging violation of Rule 7 [Disqualification.- (1) No person - (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or (b) who having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall be eligible for appointment into Force: Provided that the Central Government may if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and that there are other grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operation of this rule.] of the BSF Rules and Rule 21 [21. Restriction regarding marriage.- (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and (2) No Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person: Provided that the Central Government may permit a Government servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or clause (2), if it is satisfied that- (a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the marriage; and (b) there are other grounds f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filing the petition but proceeded to reject the same on merits. f) Challenging the orders of dismissal from service and rejection of his statutory petition, the appellant unsuccessfully invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court by filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. IMPUGNED ORDER 4. Appellant's contention before the Delhi High Court was that such court did have the territorial jurisdiction because the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs [Respondents] were located in Delhi. 5. The impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is a short order spread over 8 paragraphs. We consider it appropriate to quote the entire order, hereunder: 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief:- "(1) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction setting aside the dismissal order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Commandant, and reinstate the petitioner in his post with all consequential benefits and back wages." 2. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide the Impugned Order dated 27.10.2022 issued by the Commandant, 44 Bn. BSF, Narayanpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t clause (1) of Article 226 confers jurisdiction upon a high court where the person or authority against whom a writ, direction, or order is sought is situated within its territorial limits, whereas clause (2) of the said article enables a high court to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territory. According to him, the Central Government exercises overall superintendence over the BSF, while its command and administration vest in the Director General, BSF, and the offices of both the authorities are located in Delhi. Consequently, the Delhi High Court was competent to adjudicate the lis under clause (1) of Article 226. 7. Mr. Inayati placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in Abrar Ali v. CISF [Civil Appeal No. 6020 of 2012] He contended that the issue involved therein was substantially similar and the decision being pat on the point, the ratio thereof squarely applies in this case. He urged that the appellant was entitled to similar relief in the present case. 8. Drawing our attention to several other Division Bench decisions [W.P. (C) No.96 of 2017 (Sumit Kumar v. Union of India & ors.), W.P. (C) No.3983 of 2022....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince it could affect not only enrolled members of the BSF like the appellant but other members of the Central Armed Police Forces [CAPF] too. 16. The limited question before us is whether the Delhi High Court was right in refusing to entertain, try and adjudicate the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of forum non conveniens. 17. In Abrar Ali (supra), this Court held: "We have heard Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. 2. Leave granted. 3. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court vide order dated May 3, 2011 by holding that no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. From the impugned order, it appears that the High Court considered the aspect of jurisdiction with reference to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. We are afraid, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the High Court overlooked Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. The appellant approached Delhi High Court as the headquarter of respondent No.1 - Central Industrial Secur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticle 226 in the light of an earlier decision of the same court. This part of the order under challenge seems to have been overlooked by this Court. 21. In any event, despite such oversight, we agree with the decision in Abrar Ali (supra). The reason lies here. A 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi [(1977) 1 SCC 484] laid down the law that the Union of India would be fastened with the liability for enforcement of an order quashing an order of dismissal/removal from service of a railway servant, and not the officer who passed it. This decision, read with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the BSF Act, makes the position clear that the Union of India and the Director General, BSF having their offices in New Delhi were necessary parties to the appellant's writ petition and, thus, had been duly impleaded as the respondents before the Delhi High Court. Also, we bear in mind that in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 22, BSF Rules, every order of dismissal/removal passed under sub-rule (3) thereof has to be reported to the Director General. There is a presumption that official acts have been regularly per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn) Command and, therefore, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, this Court ruled that the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [Allahabad High Court] should have taken into consideration that the Chief of Army Staff can be sued anywhere in the country. 26. The decision in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori (supra) is notably silent both on the factual matrix pleaded and the role, if any, of the Chief of Army Staff in imposition of the order of penalty. Hence, the circumstances leading to the conclusion that the Chief of Army Staff is amenable to be sued across the country are difficult to discern. In any event, the decision in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori (supra) is prior to the introduction of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 [AFT Act] which, through Rule 62 [Place of filing application. - (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by the applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction - (i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or was last posted or attached; or (ii) where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen: Provided that with the leave of the Chairperson the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to multiple concurrent jurisdictions. Depending upon the nature of the dispute, the subject-matter involved and the parties thereto, the courts by invoking this doctrine proceed to determine which one of the available forums may be more convenient and fair for entertaining and adjudicating the matter. 72. In order to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens an adequate alternative forum must exist where the subject-matter may be espoused. The alternative forum must be capable of providing a fair and adequate remedy for the dispute, however this does not mean that the alternative forum must offer identical remedies, and this doctrine may be applied as long as the other alternative forum offers a reasonably fair process of remedy and is more convenient or appropriate in the opinion of the court invoking the doctrine. Courts in doing so must weigh the relative importance of private and public interest factors. In doing so, they exercise a high level of discretion and often issue rulings that are fact specific. *** 75. What can be discerned from the above is that where more than one forum is available, it is the discretion of the court to entertain the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court at Calcutta since the SCN and the order terminating the appellant's service were issued from Narayanpur, District Malda, West Bengal; secondly, the High Court for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, since it is within the said high court's jurisdiction that the appellant's petition under Rule 28A, BSF Rules came to be rejected; and thirdly, the Allahabad High Court's writ jurisdiction could have also been invoked by the appellant since he married the lady in Kushinagar, District Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, without prior permission of the competent authority and despite subsistence of his first marriage, which formed the basic ingredient of the charge of misconduct. All these high courts are empowered to grant adequate relief, if at all satisfied that a strong case on merits has been set up. 34. Notwithstanding that the appellant could have approached any of the three high courts based on accrual of part cause of action, as observed earlier, the Delhi High Court is indeed the fourth forum which had the competence to entertain and try the writ petition of the appellant. The Division Bench was also conscious and hence it did not dismiss the appellant's writ pet....