SIYA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the proceeding of the Summary Security Force Court held against the petitioner under Section 46 and 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (the Act for short) and the penalty/sentence contained in the order dated 10. 8. 2001 of reduction in rank to the post of Constable from Havildar passed in connection therewith.

(2.) TO appreciate the controversy, a brief narration of the facts as projected in the writ petition is called for. The petitioner at the relevant time was a Havildar in the Border Security Force ("bsf" for short) attached to 55th Battallion. On 9. 1. 97, while the petitioner was driving a Tata 407 mini truck bearing registration No. DL-1l 1089 in a convoy of five vehicles all belonging to the BSF under the command of the Assistant Commandant Shri R. C. Pant, his vehicle turned turtle while negotiating a 'u' curve at a place between Sinam and Border outpost Lamkankhonou in Manipur. In the said accident, a number of his colleagues and himself sustained injuries, but one Abdul Aziz, L/nk subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle he was driving had no iron bar or hoods in the carriage and that in the absence of such bar or hood, five jawans who were in the carriage were thrown overboard when the truck fell off the road and that the vehicle was proceeding in a normal speed and was in serial No. 3 in the convoy of five vehicles. A case was registered against the petitioner for rash and negligent driving being FIR No. 3 (1) 97 Tengnoupal Police Station, Manipur, which was eventually disposed of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandel by accepting the final report vide the order dated 4. 4. 98. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the said criminal case, the respondent No. 4 initiated a summary trial proceeding against him, for which record of evidence was taken by examining material witnesses and the most important witness, namely, Shri Kuldeep Singh, who was sitting in the cabin along with him had deposed that at the time of the accident, the truck driven by the petitioner was proceeding in a normal speed. The respondent No. 4 thereafter, by his order dated 24. 9. 97 imposed the punishment of "severely Reprimand" upon the petitioner and at the same time a sum of Rs. 3,621/- (Rupees Three thousand six hundred and twenty one) was also recovered from him as costs for damages caused to the vehicle which was eventually realized from his salary.

(3.) IT is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4, however, cancelled the aforesaid order dated 24. 9. 97 and issued the order dated 5. 12. 97 giving fresh direction for holding summary trial against the petitioner under Section 46 of the Act. The petitioner was accordingly charge-sheeted under Section 46 of the Act and proceeded against, whereafter the respondent No. 4 by his order dated 20. 3. 98 imposed a punishment of reduction of one year of service of the petitioner thereby his promotion and pension benefit came to be reduced for one year. According to the petitioner, a copy of this order dated 20. 3. 98 was never served upon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the aforesaid two punishments already imposed upon him, the respondents again charge-sheeted him under Section 46 of the Act. By this time, the petitioner was transferred to Shillong alongwith his Unit. The petitioner received the charge-sheet from the respondent No. 4 on 3. 5. 2001 and was informed that a Summary Security Force Court would be held against him on 5. 5. 2001. The petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension pending finalization of the proceeding against him. According to the petitioner, the Summary Security Force Court, without referring to the records of the earlier two proceedings against him and without affording any opportunity to him to clarify his position, awarded the punishment of reduction to the rank of Constable with effect from 21. 7. 2001. The appeal filed by him against the order dated 10. 8. 2001 did not bear any fruit. Hence, this writ petition.