BHANWARA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal bearing No. DIG(S)/ Estt/BR -VS/130BN/01/12012 -17 dated 10.4.2001 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition), issued by the DIG, BSF, TRA (South) dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE petitioner being a Constable under 130 Bn BSF was deployed for OP duty at OP No. 6 Kalimandir on 19.11.1998 from 1200 hrs. to 1800 hrs. At that time, the petitioner along with another Constable on duty Shri V. Shankaran stopped a vehicle (Jeep) and searched it on suspicion of having transported smuggle goods towards Dhanpur side. The petitioner chased the vehicle but could not detain it. The petitioner came back with his company while his companion Shri V. Shankaran reported that he recovered Rs. 10,000 from the track through which the civilians escaped. The other constable also told that he found a bundle of Rs. 10,000 might have been fallen from the wearing Lungi of the civilian who fled away. Some time thereafter, one civilian came and made a complaint that the petitioner and the other on duty extracted Rs. 50,000 from the civilian. The petitioner was put under suspension on 20.11.1998 and on 26.10.1999 the Summary Security Force Court (shortly SSFC) assembled and the charge was read over to the petitioner to which the petitioner pleaded 'not guilty'. The SSFC examined witnesses whom the petitioner cross -examined and on 30.11.1999 the SSFC announced its finding holding the petitioner 'not guilty' and acquitted him from the charge. The respondent No. 5 forwarded the entire proceeding to the DIG, respondent No. 4 who having exercised his power under Rule 160 of 'the Border Security Force Rules, 1969' (shortly the Rules) held the petitioner 'guilty' of committing robbery by forcibly snatching away Rs. 50,000 from civilian Billai Hussain and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide impugned order dated 10.4.2001. According to the petition, once the petitioner got acquittal by the SSFC, the DIG having no competence passed the impugned order. Only in case of guilty finding followed by imposition of penalty by the SSFC the same requires confirmation/review by the DIG and as such according to the petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal from service is without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE respondents filed affidavit -in -opposition contending, inter alia, that the decision arrived at by the SSFC is not final but subject to review by the DIG. Result of any proceeding, according to the affidavit -in -opposition, be it finding of guilt or finding of not guilt arrived at by the SSFC, requires confirmation by the DIG and as such all orders passed by the SSFC on an inquiry/trial are subject to review by the DIG and the DIG having exercised his power lawfully passed the impugned order which requires no interference by this court in this writ petition.