CHOKHA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a constable in Border Security Force(BSF), was on 11th of February, 2002, at about 8.00 p.m. ordered by Assistant Commandant, Shri Rajiv Bhardwaj, Company Commander, to proceed from `D' Coy to BOP Rajatal, A Coy situate at a distance of about 3 kms. close to the international border. He, however, did not comply with that order. On 12th of February, 2002, Shri S.K.Wadhwa, Commandant, 19 Bn. BSF ordered record of evidence against the petitioner for disobedience to his superior officer's command, which amounted to an offence under Section 21(1) of the BSF Act, 1968. Shri K.S.Rai, second in command, in pursuance thereof, conducted proceedings relating to record of evidence on 13th of February, 2002. In the course of such proceedings, the petitioner after recording of statements of prosecution witness, on being called upon to do so, made a statement admitting that he had not carried out the orders of his Company Commander for his movement from `D' Coy to `A' Coy stating that he would be moving out the next day.

(2.) Consequent upon record of evidence, by an order dated 20.2.2002, Shri S.K.Wadhwa, Commandant, ordered assembly of Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) on 22nd of February, 2002 at 10.00 a.m. at Headquarters, 19 Bn. BSF, Amritsar(Punjab) for trial of the petitioner for the offence under Section 21(1) of the BSF Act, 1968 allegedly committed by him. One Shri Yash Paul, Assistant Commandant of 19 Bn. was appointed as friend of the petitioner in the SSFC trial. The trial by SSFC was held on 22nd of February, 2002, at the appointed time and place. On charge-sheet being read over and explained to the petitioner, he pleaded guilty to the charge and on conclusion of trial, a sentence of dismissal from service was passed, which was later counter-signed by the Reviewing Officer on 16th of April, 2002.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 22.2.2002 dismissing him from service primarily on the grounds, (a) that material irregularities were committed by SSFC in as much as the proceedings were conducted in breach of Rules 63(1), 142(1) & (2) & 157 of the BSF Rules; (b) that the column specifically provided for recording plea of guilty was left blank and (c) that the proceedings were conducted in his absence.