KANHIYA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enlisted in Border Security Force [' BSF"] as Constable on 28/6/1980 and after undergoing necessary basic training was posted in 84 Bn of the BSF. The petitioner states that he was then transferred to 77 Bn and thereafter to 93 Bn of the BSF. While the petitioner was posted in 93 Bn, he was charged for the offence under Sec. 19(a) of the BSF Act on the allegation that at 1600 hrs on 18/10/1998 the petitioner had absented himself without leave from TP/OP NO.01 of BOP Somrar ( 'D" Coy, 93 BN) till 2330 hrs ( total period of absence 7 ' hrs). Another offence alleged against the petitioner ,under Sec. 26 of the Act, was that, at 2330 hrs on 19/10/1998 the petitioner was found in a state of intoxication while performing the duty at Tent post/OP NO.01 of BOP Somrar and after holding enquiry, he was placed under arrest. The Summary Security Force Court was held thereafter and the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that a false and frivolous charge under Sec. 19(a) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 [ 'the Act of 1968 hereafter"] has been levelled against the petitioner on the false allegation that, on 18/10/1998 at 1600 hrs, the petitioner absented without leave from TP/OP NO.1 of BOP Somrar till 2330 hrs for a total period of 7' hrs. It is submitted that the allegation of absence is false as on 18/10/1998, it was Diwali festival and the petitioner went to get the meals for the personnel posted in the TP/OP No.1 on foot, as he did not know how to ride an elephant. He was thus late by half an hour, however, the respondents wrongly mentioned absence for 7' hours. The petitioner claims that he has not committed any such offence. He also denied that second charge framed against him under Sec. 26 of the Act of 1968 on the allegation that the petitioner, on 19/10/1998, at 2330 hours, was found in a state of intoxication while performing his duty at Tent post OP No.1 of the BOP Somrar.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the order of his dismissal and the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court on numerous grounds. The grounds which were pressed into service by the learned senior counsel, while arguing the matter on behalf of the petitioner, may be summarized thus:-