Om Prakash vs Uoi And Ors

ik-195053621 Delhi High Court 15 December 2025 • 21 min read

Judges (2)

Subramonium Prasad Delivered Vimal Kumar Yadav Coram

Counsel (10)

Adhiraj Wadhera Counsel Petitioner Akash Singh Counsel Petitioner Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla Counsel Respondent Mahima Bharadwaj Kalucha Counsel Petitioner Monalisa Singh Counsel Petitioner Nikhil Mishra Counsel Petitioner Nitish Kumar Mishra Counsel Petitioner Pradyumn Singh Counsel Respondent Sarvan Kumar Counsel Respondent Vivek Narayan Sharma Counsel Petitioner

Parties (2)

Union of India Respondent Om Prakash Petitioner

Case Significance

Om Prakash vs Uoi And Ors is a Delhi High Court decision dated December 15, 2025 (citation: ik-195053621). A former BSF constable challenged his dismissal from service for overstaying leave by 95 days and the rejection of his appeal under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act. The petitioner contended that his prior conduct record was improperly considered in violation of Article 20(2) double jeopardy protections. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Rule 151 of BSF Rules lawfully permits consideration of prior conduct for sentencing purposes and there was no illegality or disproportionate punis The bench comprised Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav. The judgment was delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad.

Summary

A former BSF constable challenged his dismissal from service for overstaying leave by 95 days and the rejection of his appeal under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act. The petitioner contended that his prior conduct record was improperly considered in violation of Article 20(2) double jeopardy protections. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Rule 151 of BSF Rules lawfully permits consideration of prior conduct for sentencing purposes and there was no illegality or disproportionate punishment given the petitioner's repeated disciplinary record.

What was the outcome of Om Prakash vs Uoi And Ors?

A former BSF constable challenged his dismissal from service for overstaying leave by 95 days and the rejection of his appeal under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act. The petitioner contended that his pri...

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-195053621)