EX CONSTABLE GURDEEP SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 8.12.2008 penalty of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner against which appeal filed has been rejected vide order dated 30.11.2009, both of which have been challenged in the instant writ petition. It be noted that the petitioner was tried at a Summary Security Force Court for offences stated to have been committed under Section 20(a), 26 and 19(a) of the BSF Act 1968.The charges against the petitioner which were framed at the trial read as under:-

(2.) IT is apparent that evidence pertaining to the first and second charge would flow out of the same stated incident which allegedly took place at 21:15 hours on 1.6.2008 and the second charge pertains to petitioner absenting without leave from 17:30 hours on 3.6.2008 till 20:00 hours on 25.6.2008.

(3.) CT.Amarjeet, the person referred to by HC Mahavir Prasad, as the one who was sent to investigate when commotion was heard from the cook house deposed as PW-4 and corroborated what was deposed to by PW-1, but with an omission, in that while deposing that he saw the petitioner with a weapon in his hand, did not state that the petitioner had cocked the weapon. The witness was cross-examined by the petitioner on the point whether he used to see the petitioner go out of the BOP to which he replied that the petitioner did not immediately go out of the BOP. The second question put to the witness was whether petitioner told him where he was, when the witness contacted him over the phone in the morning, to which the witness replied that he had told the petitioner to return from wherever he was.