RAKESH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is serving as Commandant in the Border Security Force. He is facing trial by the General, Security Force hereinafter referred to as GSFC for disobedience of lawful command given to him, malingering and for making false allegations against his superiors punishable under Sections 21 (2), 24 (b)and 35 (a) of the BSF Act, 1968. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under:

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the proposed trial by Court Martial on the above counts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the order by which he has been put on trial as also the record of evidence and the attachment of the petitioner under the command of the South bengal Frontier. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining Sh Rajender Singh, IG BSF from dealing with the discplinary proceedings against him and for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate criminal/departmental proceedings against respondents no. 7 to 10.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the petitioner's case is that he was denied 7 days casual leave on extreme compassionate grounds in the year 2002 only because Sh. M. S. Sharma, Second-in-command had to be allowed to proceed on leave even when the latter had already availed leave for the year where as the petitioner had not done so. Aggrieved by the alleged unfair denial of casual leave the matter was reported by the petitioner to DG, BSF who asked for the comments of the officers concerned in response to which Sh. R. P. Singh the then DIG/principal staff Officer who was officiating as IG had according to the petitioner sent a concocted reply dated 24th October, 2002 in an attempt to save his skin and to implicate the petitioner. The said communication had also enumerated the alleged acts of misconduct of the petitioner and recommended disciplinary action against him. On receipt of a copy of the above communication, the DIG, BSF, krishnanagar had asked the Commandant of the petitioner to initiate disciplinary action against him. At the same time, the petitioner was, in terms of a signal dated 12th June, 2003 attached to 26 Bn BSF, New Delhi for disciplinary purposes. The petitioner alleges that he sought an interview with the Director general of the Force and prayed for cancellation of the attachment order who, according to the petitioner, ordered a Staff Court of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to as SCOI ). No such inquiry was, however, initiated against the petitioner, who represented to the Director General, BSF for permission to go back to his unit.