SANJEET SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL BSF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner pleads that the ex-parte inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer i.e. the Assistant Commandant is mala-fide being the result of a finding returned without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. To make good the said assertion it is pleaded that the petitioner rendered blameless service of approximately six years and that on March 24, 1999 it was falsely alleged that the petitioner and one Ct.O.P.Pandey physically assaulted a superior officer HC Manik Chandra Chaudhary. The petitioner alleges that immediately after the incident, the Commandant of the Battalion issued a charge-sheet to Ct.O.P.Pandey, but none to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that he was summoned as a witness during Court of Inquiry proceedings and that Asstt.Comdt. R.C.Dhariwal completed the Court of Inquiry proceedings and that based thereon a fresh charge- sheet was drawn against the petitioner without a Court of Inquiry being conducted. The petitioner then alleges that Asstt.Comdt.R.C.Rajput was directed to conduct the Record of Evidence at which prayer made by the petitioner to supply documents was denied. It was followed by petitioner being tried at a Summary Security Force Court and upon being found guilty was dismissed from service.

(2.) EVERYTHING is gibberish. From an Inquiry Officer being appointed and an inquiry conducted, to a Court of Inquiry proceedings and therefrom to a Record of Evidence and then a trial at a Summary Security Force Court, the petitioner has just about said everything.

(3.) THE proceedings commenced on May 20, 1999 and were completed by Asstt.Comdt.R.C.Rajput on June 10, 1999 and during which HC Manak Chandra, L/Nk.J.N.Mishra, Ct.Laxmi Kant, Ct.Chandan Burman, HC S.B.Subba, Ct.Deepankar Vishwas and HC D.Marandi were examined as witnesses. All of them were examined in the presence of the petitioner and Ct.Om Prakash Pandey. The petitioner and Ct.O.P.Pandey cross-examined the witnesses. On each and every page of the testimony, the signature of the respective witness, the petitioner and Ct.O.P.Pandey were obtained. Thereafter, in compliance with Rule 48(3) of the BSF Rules 1969, after being told that the petitioner and Ct.O.P.Pandey have a right to make a statement in defence, but which may be used against them, the petitioner and Ct.O.P.Pandey made statements in defence.