KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been dismissed from service after the Summary Force Court found him guilty of firing a shot at his colleague. In the said proceedings the petitioner admitted his role in firing a shot but qualified it by saying that since he had been denied leave, a scuffle had erupted with one Khamba Singh with whom the petitioner was not happy on account of his conduct towards him. On 19.12.2009, after an argument both the petitioner and said Khamba Singh get into skirmish and the pleaded case of the petitioner before the Summary Force Court was that he was under tension on account of the leave having been denied to him which he wanted to avail of as his wife was pregnant. The petitioner lost control over himself and while fighting with said Khamba Singh picked up his service rifle, cocked it and fired at him. The plea taken was that it was as a measure of private defence. In the Summary Force Court proceedings his guilt was established. On appreciation of the material collected in these proceedings the impugned order dated 19.3.2010 has been passed which has been further upheld in appeal vide order dated 27.4.2010.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had no intention to fire. I have considered the contention raised. In the absence of any illegality in procedure being shown to this Court, the mere plea that the petitioner had no intention to fire a shot cannot be appreciated in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India more so when the petitioner in his own statement has admitted to the scuffle and has also admitted that he prepared his rifle by cocking it and firing it. If the petitioner's intention was merely to act in private defence, then it was not essential for him to prepare the rifle for fire. The same could have been used even otherwise to ward off the attack, if any, from his opponent, who was unarmed. The intention, therefore, is manifest from the conduct of the petitioner who in all probability has exceeded his right of defence even if his stand is to be accepted as correct. Members of the disciplined force who have arms at their disposal are expected to use them in the discharge of their official duties and not demonstrate recklessness in their approach.