RAM PAUL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of sentence passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the appellate authority in the nature of a statutory appeal. The said appeal was disposed of by the appellate authority and the petitioner was so informed by communication dated 3.1.2001 intimating that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Director General as the same was found to be without any merit. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this petition.

(2.) Before adverting to various pleas raised in this petition, it would be necessary to set out certain background facts leading to passing of the aforesaid order against the petitioner. The petitioner while working as Constable was posted at (Border Out Post) BOP, Banpur, on the Bangladesh Border when an allegation was brought against the petitioner that on 29.7.2000 while performing duty at fence gate No. 3 of the Border Out Post, Banpur, he not only did not exercise his authority but also did not prevent smugglers from crossing the border and to go into Bangladesh but in fact allowed the said smugglers to cross the border.

(3.) In the light of the aforesaid allegations, record of evidence was ordered to be prepared on 8.8.2000 after the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the two charges which were framed against him. The records of the evidence proceedings were placed before us by the counsel for the respondents. During the aforesaid record of evidence proceedings, witnesses were examined and some of the said witnesses were also cross-examined by the petitioner. After completion of the aforesaid record of evidence proceedings, the competent authority passed an order on 12.8.2000 for trial of the petitioner by Summary Security Force Court on a charge under Section 40 BSF Act. He also appointed the Deputy Commandant to act as friend of the accused at the trial. The records, however, disclose that in the aforesaid trial before the Summary Security Force Court, the charges against the petitioner came to be amended and a charge was framed against the petitioner in the following manner: