AZAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2005, passed by the Commandant, recording inter alia that that he was tried by the Summary Security Force Court (in short 'SSFC') on 20.06.2005, for an offence under Sec. 20(a) of the BSF Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for using criminal force against his superior officer and awarding him a sentence of dismissal from service. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Directorate General, BSF, the Appellate Authority, rejecting his statutory appeal and confirming the dismissal order.

(2.) The incident in question that resulted in convening of the SSFC had occurred on 08.06.2005, when as per the respondents, at about 8 PM, the petitioner had entered into an altercation with Head Constable Purushottam Naik in respect of an incident that had taken place in the afternoon of the same day when Head Constable Purushottam Naik had ordered the petitioner not to leave the campus without carrying his personal weapon in an area that was sensitive and militancy infested (Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir) but he disobeyed the said order and went out of the campus on his own. In the evening, the petitioner had allegedly abused Head Constable Purushottam Naik, caught hold of him by the scruff of his collar, threatened to kill him and had slapped him thrice.

(3.) It is the petitioner's version that he had reacted so sharply on account of the fact that Head Constable Purushottam had rained abuses on him and had he not been provoked so intensely, he would not have entered into an altercation with his superior officer or assaulted him. On 13.06.2005, the petitioner was charged for using criminal force on his superior officer. Full opportunity was granted to him to cross -examine the prosecution witnesses, but he had declined to do so. After hearing the charge against the petitioner, a Record of Evidence (in short 'ROE') was recorded under Rule 48 of the BSF Rules. During the course of the ROE, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to cross -examine the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW -1 HC Purshottam Naik, PW -2 HC Harsh Kumar, PW -3 HC K.R. Besra, PW -4 Ct. Pradeep Kumar and PW -5 Ct.Surendra Singh. The petitioner had declined to cross -examine PW -1 and PW -2 on 13.06.2005 and he had refused to sign the statement of opportunity for cross -examination that was declined by him. On 14.06.2005, the petitioner had cross -examined PW -3. On 15.06.2005, he had declined to cross -examine PW -4 and PW -5. On 17.06.2005, the petitioner was provided with a copy of the charge -sheet and as per his choice, a 'friend of accused' was appointed to assist him during the trial directed to be conducted by the SSFC.