DHARINTER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated 9.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 397/96, whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld order dated 12.5.1995 passed by Commandant, 23 Bn., BSF, dismissing the appellant from service with effect from 12.5.1995.

(2.) In brief the facts are that the appellant came to be recruited and appointed as Constable on 15.2.1991 in Border Security Force. On 27.8.1994, while the appellant was posted at Kupwara (Kashmir) and deployed in 23 Bn. BSF, he was found going towards ORS line in a drunken state, with his rifle improperly cocked, saying "Main BHM Ko Goli Mardoonga" and other words to that effect. Action was initiated against the appellant and the proceedings of Summary Security Force Court were held on 12.5.1995 at Kupwara. The Summary Security Force Court found the appellant guilty of charges and sentenced him to dismissal from service. Appellant, being aggrieved against conviction by Summary Security Force Court, preferred statutory petition before the Central Government and that too came to be dismissed. The order in this regard was conveyed to the appellant on March 15, 1996. Appellant challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the Summary Security Force Court in SWP 397/96. The learned Single Judge, after perusal of the record and hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition. The present appeal is against the order of learned Single Judge dated 9.7.1998.

(3.) Before us, the only ground urged is as to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Rule 142 of BSF Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), in as much as neither the respondents obtained the signature of the appellant in token of plea of guilt nor any certificate of compliance was ever recorded in the minutes of the proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant initially was charged under Section 20(b) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") but, later on, the charge was amended and the appellant was tried under Section 40 of the Act. According to her, before amending the charge, no notice was given to the appellant. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is that neither any notice was given to the appellant before amending the charge nor the appellant was made to understand the nature of charge and the consequences thereof.