A. MURALI KRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner a constable of the Border Security Force was dismissed from service on being tried and found guilty on the basis of two charge sheets containing two charges each. The first charge sheet was under Section 40 and 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 for acts prejudicial to good order and disciplinary of the force and for intoxication. The petitioner pleaded guilty to both the charges. On the first charge sheet the Summary Security Force Court accepted his plea and recorded the findings of guilty to both the charges. The trial thereafter proceeded on the second charge sheet under Section 20 (c) and 21 Clause (1) of the Border Security Act, to which the petitioner also pleaded guilty. Thereafter the Security Force Court after due compliance with Rule 142 Clause (2) of the Border Security Force Rules 1969, sentenced him to be dismissed from service by order dated 1st April, 2016. Against the order of dismissal passed by the Summary Security Force Court, the petitioner filed a Statutory Appeal/Petition before the Director General Border Security Force which also came to be dismissed by order dated 11th May, 2017. Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal, this petition is before this Court.

(2.) Mr. R.J. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate, inasmuch as, the only offence which the petitioner can be held to be liable for is intoxication. He further submits that the acts of indiscipline committed by the petitioner which he was charged under Section 40 of the Act, is due and to, and because of the effects of his intoxication, and as such he submits that if he is to be punished, the same is to be meted out under the provision of Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act which prescribes a maximum punishment only six months imprisonment.

(3.) The learned counsel also contended that as Section 49 of the Border Security Force Act provides for award of alternate punishment, the Summary Security Force Court should have awarded a lesser degree of punishment by application of the said Section to the petitioner. He further submits that the Summary Security Force Court, without assigning any reason and without complying with the provisions of Rule 142 Clause (2) of the Border Security Force Rules dismissed the petitioner from service. As such he prays that the impugned order dated 1st April, 2016 be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service.