GUDDU KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 29/12/2020 passed by the Commandant 148 BN, Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'BSF'), directing the dismissal of the petitioner from service; the order dtd. 13/4/2021 passed by the respondent no. 3, dismissing the representation of the petitioner against the above order of removal from service; and the order dtd. 9/6/2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 wherein the representation of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 29/12/2021 was again dismissed on the ground that under Sec. 117 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule 167(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), a person aggrieved by any order passed by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as 'SSFC') can present only one petition to any of the officers mentioned in Sec. 117 of the Act and since the petitioner had already availed said opportunity by submitting a statutory petition to the respondent no. 3 which was duly considered, there is no provision to entertain another representation in the same regard.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that a hearing under Rules 45/45A/45B of the Rules was conducted against the petitioner on 18/12/2021 on six charges viz. (i) on 16/12/2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner was found in a state of intoxication; (ii) on 16/12/2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner misbehaved and abused Insp/Offg Coy Commander Sunil Yadav; (iii) on 16/12/2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner used threatening language against Const/GD P M Rao; (iv) on 16/12/2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner was found in unauthorized possession of a pouch of 180 ml Officer Choice whiskey; (v) on 16/12/2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner was found in possession of mobile phone which is against the instructions and (vi) on 16/12/2020 at about 2130 hours while on duty the petitioner refused to sit in the ambulance for proceeding for his medical test despite order by SI Ganpat Lal to do so. The charges so framed were corroborated by six witnesses and vide order dtd. 18/12/2020, a Record of Evidence was directed to be prepared against the petitioner.

(3.) On 29/12/2020, after the preparation of the Record of Evidence, the SSFC was conducted against the petitioner wherein he was found guilty on all six of the aforementioned charges. The petitioner is alleged to have admitted to being guilty of the six charges hence, the order of dismissal from service was passed.