MADAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment, and order dated 06.07.2001 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 527/1998, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The facts in brief, as borne out from the writ record, are that the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 30.07.1966 in the Border Security Force. He earned promotions upto the rank of Head Constable. He served for about 28 years up to 05.05.1994 when he was dismissed from service vide Order No. Estt/273/10/94/9509-27 dated 05.05.1994 issued by the Commandant, 10 Bn. BSF, impugned before the Writ Court. The charges against him were that he directly accepted gratification from different persons for himself for procuring their enrolment in the service. He was accordingly charge sheeted and eight charges were framed against him under Section 41(e) of the BSF Act. He was tried by the General Security Force Court and was held guilty of 1st, 5th and 6th charges. He was accordingly dismissed from service. Petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner under Section 117(d) of the BSF Act too came to be rejected vide order dated 31.01.1995. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-writ petitioner filed SWP No. 527/1998 before the Writ Court. The Writ Court vide order dated 06.07.2001 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. Hence the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ record as well as the relevant record produced by the Union of India.

(3.) The grounds taken by the appellant-writ petitioner are that the writ respondents while holding the inquiry did not comply with Rules 48, 170, 173, 175 & 176 of BSF Rules and the Inquiry Officer who conducted the inquiry was not competent to hold the inquiry. Further, it has been pleaded that the affidavits filed by the appellant-writ petitioner were not taken into consideration nor he was given an opportunity of hearing. It has also been pleaded that the statements of three material witnesses, namely, Parveen Singh, Major Singh and Madan Lal were not recorded. In addition, Mrs. Kour, learned senior counsel also argued that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the nature of charges.