DEEPAK ROY Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON February 06, 2010 an offence report was put up before Commandant Sumer Singh of the 65th Bn. BSF to which the petitioner was attached as a Head Constable. The offence listed in the offence report was for having acted in a manner which was prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force (an offence under Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968). The factual content of the offence report was that while performing the duties in AOR of JCP Attari between 1st to 3rd February, 2010, the petitioner knowingly passed information to notorious smugglers about the smuggling routes and disclosed the BSF operational plan to them which may lead to imperil the success of the force and also passed operational information which would facilitate the smugglers to carry out the smuggling in the unit AOR across the border.

(2.) THE seriousness of the offence report, as would be expected, led the Commandant to pass an order on the same day, after hearing the petitioner, that Record of Evidence be drawn up. 2 -IC Sh.A.R.Rathore, was detailed to conduct the proceedings concerning Record of Evidence. As required by Rule 45 of the BSF Rules, 1969, the Commandant drew up the charge in respect whereto the Record of Evidence had to be prepared, and we note that the charge drawn up was: -

(3.) 2 -IC S.Rathore recorded statements of 8 witnesses and forwarded the Record of Evidence to the Commandant of the 65th Bn.