Delhi High Court – Orders
Jagdeep Singh Sandu vs Union Of India & Anr on 22 August, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12722/2025, CM APPL. 51955/2025
JAGDEEP SINGH SANDU .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Surender Singh Hooda,
Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Wahid Mashaal with Mr.
Anisul Haque, GP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER
% 22.08.2025
W.P.(C) 12722/2025, CM APPL. 51955/2025
1. This is clearly a pre-mature writ petition, instituted before this
Court at the stage when a show cause notice dated 23 May 2025 is
pending against the petitioner.
2. Mr. Hooda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, initially sought
to place reliance on orders passed by this Court in certain other writ
petitions. On the Court pointing out to him that the orders were merely
ad interim orders which did even not reflect the facts of those cases,
Mr. Hooda submits that he was unaware of the facts of the said cases
and was citing those decisions only for the preposition that there is no
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 1 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
embargo on a court staying the operation of a show cause notice, or on
a noticee approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India at the stage of a show cause notice.
3. We have no doubt that even at the stage of a show cause notice,
a noticee can approach a court challenging the show cause notice and
seeking interdiction.
4. Equally, however, it is a well settled principle that courts should
be extremely cautious in interfering at the stage of a show cause
notice. Mr. Hooda, has placed reliance on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Piara Singh v State of Punjab1, Oryx Fisheries (P)
Ltd v UOI2, Siemens Ltd v State of Maharashtra3, B.S. Hari
Commandant v UOI4, West Bengal State Electricity Board v Dilip
Kumar Ray5 and judgment of the Single bench of the Calcutta High
Court in Amiya Ghosh v Union of India6.
5. The very paragraphs that Mr. Hooda places reliance on
emphasize the position that writ courts should not ordinarily interfere
at show cause notice stage. We reproduce the relevant paragraphs
from the decision cited by Mr. Hooda thus:
“From Siemens:
1 (1969) 1 SCC 379
2 (2010) 13 SCC 427
3 (2006) 12 SCC 33
4 (2023) 13 SCC 779
5 (2007) 14 SCC 568
6 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 6177W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 2 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning
a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have
been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some
decisions including State of U.P. v Brahm Datt Sharma7, Special
Director v Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse8 and Union of
9
India v Kunisetty Satyanarayana , but the question herein has to
be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued
with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such
an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the
matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful
purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v Union of India10. It is evident in the
instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It
explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its
purported show-cause notice.
From Oryx Fisheries:
31. It is of course true that the show-cause notice cannot be
read hypertechnically and it is well settled that it is to be read
reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-cause
notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he
will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained
in the show-cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a
reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary
prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show-cause notice
will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head
against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show-
cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it
is issued in a quasi-judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation
which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable
opportunity of defence.
32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the
authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they
are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person
proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a
punitive step against the person after giving him a show-cause
notice.
33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must
7 AIR 1987 SC 943
8 (2004) 3 SCC 440
9 (2006) 12 SCC 28
10 AIR 1988 SC 686
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 3 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi-
judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence
in the mind of those who are subject to it.
From Amiya Ghosh:
21. It is quite true and well accepted that a writ court should be
slow to entertain a writ petition which seeks to challenge a show-
cause notice.
22. However, it is difficult to imprison the principles resting on
which a writ petition against a show-cause notice may be
entertained in a straitjacket. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (supra)
and Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra) are certainly decisions
sounding a warning that unless the impugned show-cause notice is
demonstrably non-est on the ground of total lack of authority to
investigate facts, the court ought to stay at a distance. A small
window is thus available in terms of these decisions itself. The
decision reported in (Union of India v VICCO Laboratories11),
taking a step further, has ruled that if a show-cause notice is issued
in an abuse of the process of law, the writ court should not hesitate
to interfere. Challenge to a show-cause notice may also be laid
when the premeditated, pre-judged, and closed mind of the
authority issuing it is manifest and the noticee is called upon to
dispel conclusions of guilt already drawn, and proceedings are
initiated only to complete a legal formality. That is exactly what
has been laid down by the Supreme Court in its decisions reported
in Siemens Ltd. v State of Maharashtra and Oryx Fisheries (P)
Ltd. v Union of India cited by Mr. Roy.
23. Having regard to the nature of challenge raised by the
petitioner and the points on which the show-cause notice is sought
to be assailed in particular, he does not deserve to be told off at the
threshold and the journey must continue to decide the other
questions. Mr. Bhattacharya’s contention that the writ petition is
premature fails and is, accordingly, overruled.
*****
58. Looking at the above pleading, the conclusion seems to be
inescapable that the impugned show-cause notice is the product of
a premeditated, pre-judged and closed mind of the confirming
authority. That it has been issued without in any manner
demonstrating application of mind and without a semblance of
11 (2007) 13 SCC 270
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 4 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
reasoning, affords ground to hold that the apprehension of the
petitioner that the confirming authority has initiated proceedings
under section 11 of the BSF Act read with rule 22 of the BSF Rules
to complete a formality in law is not misconceived. Such a notice
cannot be allowed to stand for a moment and the same is,
accordingly, liable to be set aside.”
6. Clearly, therefore, a show cause notice can be interfered with
only if the show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction or if it is
issued mala fide or with a premeditated mind.
7. We suggested to Mr. Hooda that if he was alleging mala fides
or malice in fact against any officer, it would be more appropriate to
implead the officer as a party in view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Ratnagiri Gas and Power (P) Ltd. v RDS Projects
Ltd12. At this, Mr. Hooda submitted that he did not desire to implead
any officer in person and what he was alleging was not malice in fact
but malice in law.
8. Mr. Hooda’s contention is not that the show cause notice is bad
for want of jurisdiction but that the show cause notice was issued with
a premeditated mind.
9. We have also no doubt in our mind that if the facts of the case
and the material on record indicates that the authority issuing the show
cause notice had acted with a premeditated mind, the Court must
interfere. At the same time, the Court is not a psychoanalyst. It cannot
easily divine the mind of the person issuing the show cause notice. As
12 (2013) 1 SCC 524
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 5 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
such, any plea that a show cause notice is issued with a premeditated
mind must be supported with sufficient material on the face of the
show cause notice to indicate that the authority issuing a show cause
notice had already made up its mind.
10. To support his case that the show cause notice was issued with a
premeditated mind, Mr. Hooda submits that there is nothing in the
show cause notice to indicate as to why the authority issuing the show
cause notice was not willing to abide by the findings of the
conforming authority which were in favour of the petitioner.
11. We have gone through the show cause notice. We find the
submission to be completely erroneous on facts. The show cause
notice has been issued on behalf of the Director General, BSF. Apart
from the fact that the Director General, BSF is the highest authority in
the BSF, and we have no reason whatsoever to doubt his impartiality
or the fact that he would adjudicate the show cause notice with an
open mind, we deem it appropriate to reproduce para 10 of the show
cause notice which clearly indicates the reasons as to why a tentative
view was adopted by the Director General, BSF that the case was one
which called for termination of the petitioner:
“10. Whereas, the Director General has examined the reference
received from the Addl DG(EC), being the confirming authority, as
aforesaid, and has also examined the evidence available on record,
reasoned findings of the Court and the sentence awarded to Shri
Jagdeep Singh Sandhu, Commandant. The DG has noted that Shri
Jagdeep Singh Sandhu, Commandant indulged himself in
smuggling activities and misused his position of authority being
Commandant of the BSF Battalion wherein he directed his under
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 6 of 10This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
command to facilitate the cattle smuggling and further directed him
that he should show seizure of only four cattle heads and should
also get some PAG ammunition fired to make it look like a realistic
encounter leading to recovery of the cattle heads. Such kind of
directions to his under command and in pursuance thereof, the
large scale cattle smuggling having taken place from the pre
decided border area and the suitable time as per the direction of
Shri Jagdeep Singh Sandhu, Commandant is an extremely serious
misconduct committed by him wherein he not only connived in the
smuggling activities with the known smugglers and directed his
under command to facilitate in such illegal cattle smuggling
activities and also guided them how to cover up the entire
operation. Seen in this light, the sentence awarded by the Court
wherein he has been given in service punishment and the same
sentence having been adhered to in the revision proceedings, a
situation has come up that a convicted Commandant of the BSF
Battalion for his involvement in cattle smuggling activities has
been allowed to remain in the rolls of the Force and continue to
serve the Force by virtue of the sentence so awarded by the Court.
The DG BSF, in the best interest of the Force, and in the interest of
the Nation, wherein the BSF is mandated to guard the International
Borders of the country and to prevent smuggling activities, has
come to the conclusion that retention of Shri Jagdeep Singh
Sandhu, Commandant in service has become undesirable pursuant
to his conviction by the Court more so when no further trial by a
Security Force Court is permissible under the law. The DG has,
thus, concluded that continuance of Shri Jagdeep Singh Sandhu,
Commandant in service shall be detrimental to the interest of the
Nation and the Force and shall create an example before the troops
which shall be absolutely against the interest of the Force.”
12. Even after having set out the aforesaid observations, paras 11
and 12 of the show cause notice have nonetheless left the field wide
open for the petitioner to canvas all grounds that he seeks to urge in
order to contest the proposed decision to terminate his services.
13. We reproduce paras 11 and 12 of the show cause notice thus:
“11. Whereas, in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the
BSF Act, 1968 and Rule 20 of the BSF Rules, 1969, the DG BSF
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 7 of 10This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
has formed his tentative opinion to issue a Show Cause Notice to
Shri Jagdeep Singh Sandhu, Commandant proposing to terminate
his services; and.
12. In view of above, I have been directed to call upon you to
submit in writing your explanation and defence which you may
wish to put forward against the proposed action of termination of
your service under Rule 20 of BSF Rules, 1969 read with Sec 10 of
BSF Act, 1968. If you have anything to urge against the proposed
action, you may do so within 30 days from the receipt of this
notice. In case, if no reply is received from you within the
stipulated time, it shall be presumed that you have nothing to urge
against the proposed action for termination of your services under
Rule 20 of BSF Rules, 1969 read with Sec 10 of BSF Act, 1968
and further decision shall be taken in the matter.”
14. We fail to understand why or how we should interfere in such a
case at the instance of the petitioner when a show cause notice is still
pending. It is obvious from a bare reading of the show cause notice
that there is no premeditation. The authority issuing the show cause
notice has left all issues of fact and law open for the petitioner to urge
before the Director General, BSF who would adjudicate the show
cause notice dispassionately after considering all these aspects.
15. Even though, in view of the fact that Mr. Hooda has declined
the Court suggestion that he should implead any person by name, we
do not see why we should enter into any aspect of mala fides at all.
We reiterate that it would be open to the petitioner, if he feels that the
proceedings against him were mala fide, to urge the said submission
before the Director General, BSF by way of response to the show
cause notice, and if any such submission is urged, the Director
General, BSF would address the submission and take a view thereon
in accordance with law.
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 8 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
16. One of the submissions urged by Mr. Hooda was that the show
cause notice ought not to have been issued even when his statutory
petition under Section 117 of the BSF Act was pending.
17. We may note that, at the stage when a show cause notice was
issued, the petitioner already had orders against him which was why
he had preferred the petition under Section 117 of the BSF Act. It
may be doubtful as to whether the mere fact that the show cause notice
was issued at the stage when the Section 117 petition was pending can
be a ground to invalidate the show cause notice. We may note that,
thereafter, even the Section 117 petition has been decided against the
petitioner.
18. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has approached this
Court at the stage when the show cause notice is still pending, we do
not deem it a fit case to issue notice and interfere in the matter. We
reserve liberty with the petitioner, however, to take up all the grounds
urged in this writ petition as well as any other ground that the
petitioner may so choose before Director General, BSF, in response to
the aforesaid show cause notice.
19. We also direct that the Director General, BSF would consider
all the aforesaid grounds and pass a reasoned and speaking order,
dealing with the grounds, while adjudicating the show cause notice.
20. Mr. Hooda points out, at this juncture, that this writ petition also
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 9 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06
assails the findings of the GSFC, RGSFC as well as statutory petition.
21. As such, we issue notice on this writ petition, limited to the
prayers (b), (c) & (d). Prayer (e) stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
22. Qua prayers (b), (c) and (d), issue notice.
23. Notice is accepted, on behalf of respondents, by Mr. Wahid
Mashaal.
24. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks with an advance
copy to learned counsel for the petitioner, who may file rejoinder
thereto, if any, within four weeks thereof.
25. The record of GSFC proceedings to be kept ready on the next
date of hearing.
26. List before the Joint Registrar on 27 October 2025 for
completion of pleadings.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
AUGUST 22, 2025/dsn/ng
W.P.(C) 12722/2025 Page 10 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 21:43:06