PRADIP KUMAR HAJONG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal ground urged by the writ petitioner in assailing the order of punishment inflicted by the Security Force Court of the Border Security Force is that the review preferred by the petitioner was not appropriately dealt with.

(2.) Indeed, it is rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondents that Sec. 117 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 provides for a petition being filed against the confirmation of an order of punishment. Such petition, according to the writ petitioner, was filed before the Director-General of BSF, but the response to the petition was issued by the Chief Law Officer of the Force.

(3.) Sec. 117(2) of the said Act mandates that any person, who considers himself aggrieved by a finding or sentence of any Security Force Court which has been confirmed, may present a petition to the Central Government, the Director-General or any prescribed officer superior in command to the one who confirmed such finding or sentence. It may also be noticed that the reminder of the provision requires the authority in receipt of the petition to "pass such order thereon as it or he thinks fit."