ILLIYAS AHMAD vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

2026:JHHC:32331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6988 of 2019
…..

Illiyas Ahmad @ Eliyas Ahmed (Regimental No. 960040104), aged about
45 years, son of Mangal Khan, resident of village Shahpur, P.O. and P.S.
Farah, District-Mathura (Uttar Pradesh). ….Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, Northblock, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hills, New
Delhi-110001.
2. Director General of Indo-Tibetan Boarder Police Force, Complex,
Government of India, Block-2, CGO Complex, P.O. CGO, New Delhi-
110003.
3. Inspector General of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Head Quarter,
Block-2, CGO Complex, P.O. CGO, Complex, Government of India New
Delhi-110003.
4. Deputy Inspector General of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force,
S.K.Puram, R.P.S. More, Danapur, P.O. Danapur-801503.
th
5.Commandant, 40 Battalion, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force,
Sukruhuttu Camp, P.O. Kanke, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
…Respondents
…..
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
…..
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Allam, Sr Advocate
Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Adv
Mr. S. Ahmad, Adv
Mr. Altaf Hussain, Adv
Ms. Asfia Sultana, Adv
For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Adv
…..
CAV on 17.8.2026 Pronounced on:04.11.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred inter alia for
quashing the order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure-5), passed by the
th
Commandant, 40 Battalion, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force,
Sukurhutu Camp, Kake, Ranchi, by which the services of the petitioner
have been terminated.
1

2026:JHHC:32331
The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 12.02.2018
(Annexure-10), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of the Indo-
Tibetan Border Police Force, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner
has been dismissed.
The petitioner further throws a challenge to the order dated
3.10.2019 (Annexure-12), by which the application filed for restoration of
service has been rejected.
3. The petitioner additionally prays that appropriate directions be
issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join and continue his
duties as a constable in the Indian Tibetan Border Police Force, along with
all consequential benefits.
4. Mr. A. Allam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
assisted by Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, submits that the petitioner joined the
Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force as a constable and was transferred from
place to place till 2015. The petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime
Case No. 112 of 2006, along with three other persons, for committing
alleged offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that no evidence was filed as against
the petitioner, and resultantly the police filed a final form in favour of the
petitioner.
5. However, the Ld. Trial Court, while exercising powers under
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, put the petitioner
on trial and convicted him for committing an offence under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was
2

2026:JHHC:32331
given the sentence of life imprisonment in Sessions Trial Case No. 580 of
2006.
6. At this stage Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the petitioner had
specifically asserted that he was not present at the time when the alleged
occurrence took place, as he was discharging his duties with the
respondents. However, this plea was not taken into consideration by the
Ld. Trial Court.
He submits that the execution of the conviction and sentence
passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 580 of 2006 has been suspended during
the pendency of the appeal on 22.07.2019 by the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4152 of 2015.
The Ld. Senior Counsel, placing heavy reliance on Annexure-3
(which is the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4152
of 2015), submits that the sentence has been suspended primarily on the
ground that, at the time when the incident took place, the Petitioner was
in service as a constable in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force.
7. On the basis of the above facts, the Ld. Sr. Counsel vehemently
argues that once the sentence and conviction have been suspended, the
effect of that conviction will not operate from the date of such stay. He
submits that the case of the Petitioner is not a mere stay of the sentence
but the stay of the conviction as well. In light of the fact that the conviction
has been stayed, the punishment order is fit to be set at naught.
8. Per Contra , Mr Prashant Pallav, Ld. Sr. Counsel -cum-
Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Ravi Prakash,
3

2026:JHHC:32331
Central Government Counsel, and Shivani Jaluka, Advocate, opposes the
relief sought by the Petitioner. The Ld. ASGI submits that the Respondent
is a disciplined force governed by their own set of service rules. The
services of the petitioner were terminated on account of conviction for the
serious offence of murder, and the petitioner has been punished with life
imprisonment.
The argument advanced by the petitioner with respect to his
reinstatement on account of suspension of conviction is not tenable in the
eye of law. He submits that at the time when the order of termination was
passed, the order of conviction and sentencing was still operational, and
as such, the subsequent suspension could not lead to the reinstatement of
the Petitioner.
9. The Ld. ASGI has placed reliance on the case of Govt. of
A.P. and Ors. vs. B. Jagjeevan Rao (12.05.2014 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0503/2014 to further buttress his argument.
10. Learned ASGI further submits that apart from this
ground, there is no other infirmity in the procedure that has been argued
or pleaded by the Petitioner. In light of no any procedural infirmity, it is
contended that this Court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
in setting aside the disciplinary proceedings, in light of the judgement
rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan and others v. Bhupendra Singh
(2024 INSC 592) , where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Court, in
exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot
4

2026:JHHC:32331
sit over the decision taken by the disciplinary authorities and can interfere
with the findings of the authorities only in case of perversity.
11. Having heard Ld. Sr. Counsel for the parties and perusing the
records; the short issue raised in the instant petition is whether the
petitioner can be reinstated in service in light of his conviction being
suspended in a criminal court in a criminal case being suspended by a
superior (appellate court) ?
12. The skeletal facts which are relevant for deciding the issue and
which is admitted by the parties is that the petitioner was appointed as a
constable with the respondent. The petitioner thereafter was convicted for
committing offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the conviction of the petitioner, his
service was terminated by the disciplinary authority which was
subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority. Subsequently, the
appellate court, in the criminal proceeding has suspended the conviction
of the petitioner by virtue of the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 4152 of 2015 (Annexure 3). It is based on this order that the
petitioner claims his right to be reinstated.
13. The thrust of the argument advanced by the Ld. Senior Counsel
representing the petitioner is that once the order of conviction has been
suspended, all orders flowing from such conviction should be set at
naught.
14. In response to this, the Ld. ASGI submits that even an order
staying conviction rendered after the order of termination, would not
5

2026:JHHC:32331
affect orders passed in disciplinary proceedings, especially in connection
with disciplined force and where a person who has been held guilty of
committing a serious and heinous offence. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot
be reinstated on suspension of the conviction.
15. In the factual background of the case, the petitioner is not
entitled to relief as prayed for on the said date when the conviction was
suspended, inasmuch as, the petitioner already stood terminated. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan
(2003) 12 SCC 432, has held that in cases where conviction itself is stayed,
the effect of that conviction will be operative from the date of stay. The
effect of such stay of conviction would therefore operate from the date
when such conviction is stayed, and would not turn the clock back in the
favour of the Petitioner.
16. In light thereof, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. No order as to cost.

(Deepak Roshan J.)

Dated:4 /11/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded
5.11.2026




6