MAJAFAR ALI MONDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a member of the Border Security Force (hereafter the Force ). He was tried by a Summary Security Force Court (hereafter the Court) pursuant to an order dated 20. 11. 2007 of the Commandant, 41 Bn. of the Force. The proceedings culminated in an order dismissing him from service. On a statutory petition dated 4. 12. 2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal from service, the impugned order was upheld and the petition was rejected by an order passed by the director General of the Force. The question that falls for determination on this petition is whether the order of dismissal from service passed aqainst the petitioner on the basis of admission of the charges by him requires interdiction by this Court in exercise of writ powers.

(2.) THE basic facts are not in dispute. On the basis of a report that the petitioner had committed offences under Sections 30 (a) and 40 of the border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereafter the Act), the charges against him were heard by the Commandant who directed for preparation of Record of Evidence (hereafter ROE) in terms of Rule 45 (2) (iii) of the Border security Force Rules, 1999 (hereafter the Rules) read with Rule 48 thereof. The ROE having been prepared, charge-sheet dated 18. 11. 2007 was issued against him containing three charges. The first charge related to unauthorised wearing of rank of a Sub-Inspector of the Force by the petitioner on 23. 08. 2006 while returning from leave. The other charges related to his stealing Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 1600/- from two of his colleagues on 14. 10. 2006 and on 04. 08. 2006 respectively.

(3.) BY an order dated 20. 11. 2007 issued by the Commandant, it was directed that the petitioner would be tried by the Court with effect from 21. 11. 2007 and he was placed under open arrest till conclusion of trial under Rule 38 of the Rules. In course of proceedings of the Court, the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges levelled against him. On such plea of the petitioner, the Court recorded as follows:-