SATYAKI KSHETRAPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is in service with the Sashatra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred to as "the SSB ") and covered under the provisions of the Sashatra Seema Bal Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2009 framed thereunder. He has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order of the respondent authority/Commandant, 36 Bn SSB, Geyzing, dated October 08, 2021 by dint of which the authority has directed deduction of 30 per cent pay of the writ petitioner for being remitted to his wife, on account of maintenance payable to her consequent to their matrimonial dispute. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the said order dated October 08, 2021 and to pay him his actual salary without any deduction therefrom, as directed.

(2.) The facts culminating into filing of the present writ petition may be summarised in the manner that, on and from July 29, 2021 the petitioner has been in service with the respondent/SSB. On January 02, 2018, he got married. But he never experienced a peaceful and cordial married life. Their discord ultimately led to filing of an FIR against the petitioner by the wife on December 04, 2018 being Memari PS Case No. 621 of 2018 under Sec. 498A, 406, 34, IPC. Subsequent thereto, the wife made a written complaint to the respondent authority against the writ petitioner.

(3.) On February 06, 2019, the writ petitioner was given a personal hearing concerning complaint of his wife, by the DIG, Special Operations, SSB, Srinagar, Kashmir, where the petitioner was posted at that point of time. During the hearing, the petitioner has categorically admitted about his marriage, disputes with his wife and also, that a police case being Memari PS Case No. 621 of 2018 has been lodged against him. He has also disclosed that in connection with the said police case, he has obtained bail. Pursuant thereto, office memorandum was issued dated February 15th, 2019 advising the writ petitioner to sort out his family dispute with wife at the appropriate level. Also, the petitioner was directed not to conceal any information which might have legal implications/bearing on his service and also to convey the progress of the criminal case against him to the office from time to time.