Delhi HC can hear service termination cases of CAPF personnel, says SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the Delhi High Court can hear service termination cases of members of the Central Armed Police Forces, including the Border Security Force, even if the cause of action arose outside the national capital. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order while reviving a petition filed by a BSF constable who had challenged his dismissal without any pensionary benefits.

The constable was dismissed on the ground that he had entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of previous ones and without the permission of his first wife. A show-cause notice was issued to him at Narayanpur in West Bengal’s Malda district, where he was posted. The constable failed to submit a reply within the stipulated period. Consequently, the commandant in 2022 dismissed him from service without any pensionary benefits.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the constable filed a statutory petition seeking reinstatement in service, which was rejected. Challenging the orders of dismissal from service and rejection of his statutory petition, the constable moved the Delhi High Court, which rejected his plea applying the doctrine of “forum non conveniens” (an inconvenient forum). The high court said it would not be the appropriate or convenient forum for entertaining the petition.

The constable had argued before the high court that the petition was filed before it, as the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are situated in Delhi.

“We hold that in case any member of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), and that includes the BSF, is aggrieved by any administrative order of termination of his service issued by the competent authority, notwithstanding that the cause of action arose outside, i.e., the said order was issued from a place beyond the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court or that the events which triggered such an order occurred outside its limits, etc., still the Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in light of situs of office of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF/the officer in whom is vested supervision and command of the other CAPF, as per clause (1) of Article 226,” the Supreme Court bench said.

The top court, in its judgment, said the doctrine of “forum non conveniens” has been misapplied by the high court in the context of writ jurisdiction referable to Article 226 of the Constitution.

“Such an article permits filing of a writ petition as per the situs of office of the respondent(s) and cause of action, which gives the right of action. Where the question of pursuing a constitutional remedy is involved, and invocation of writ jurisdiction is traceable to clause (1) of Article 226, the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply,” the bench said.