MOHINDER SINGH EX CONSTABLE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his removal from service on the basis of the decision taken by the Summary Security Force Court under the Border Security Force Act, 1968.

(2.) The case of the petitioner briefly stated is in the following terms. The petitioner was enrolled in Border Security Force (in short BSF) in April 1988. In march 1989, he was posted in 'B' Coy of 92 Battalion BSF. In October 1993, the said 'B' Coy under the charge of Company Commander Shri Shiv Kumar Garg, Assistant Commandant. The Company was required to do election duty. Other Companies were detailed for similar duties and all those. Companies together formed part of BS-1 Battalion under the charge of Shri U .K. Chakraborty, who was the senior most officer in the Company. The said Shri U.K. Chakraborty who was not competent to impose any punishment as the disciplinary powers could be exercised by only the Commandant of the Company, unjustifiably imposed punishment of 14 days rigourous imprisonment. The said officer was told that the petitioner could make a complaint against the superior officer and that was the gensis of the petitioner being roped in in a case of assault of one L.G. Singh. It was alleged that along with Constable Dinesh Saklani caused hurt on the person of that L.G Singh. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at 1830 hours on 25.11.1993. The petitioner came to know about it on 14.12.1993. No staff court of inquiry was held. No copy of the staff court of inquiry was given to the petitioner. No hearing was given to the petitioner, as required under Rule 45 of the BSF Rules. On06.02.1994, charges were framed under Section 20(a) of the BSF Act, 1968 against the petitioner and four others after recording the evidence.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that what is alleged to have been committed by him is a civil offence within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the B.S.F Act, 1968 and the provision of Section 74 of the Act had not been followed. Rule 158 in this behalf had not been complied with. The petitioner has also alleged that the provisions of Section 70 of the BSF Act, 1968 have not been followed. It is the further case of the petitioner that in providing friend of the accused the mandate of Rule 154 of the Act had been ignored.