LAWS(J&K)-2024-4-23

SUMANTA DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 15, 2024
Sumanta Dutta Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner through the medium of this petition filed in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner as pleaded and projected by him, is that he was enrolled in the Border Security Forces (BSF) on 13/4/1988 as a Constable having No.880073226, undergone training at STC Shillong (Training Centre, Shillong), thereafter he remained posted at different places i.e. Bareily, West Bengal, Srinagar, Manipur, Shillong and Sopore (Srinagar) and the work of the petitioner was appreciated by the superiors under whom the petitioner remained posted from time to time and he had earned I.G and, D.l.G. awards, besides six cash rewards. It has been pleaded that false and frivolous allegations were levelled against the petitioner U/S 46 of the BSF Act and the charge sheet was framed on 27/11/2004 on the allegation of committing a civil offences to minor/little girls with intention to outrage their modesty and the allegations were that on 31/7/2004, while attached with frontier Headquarter BSF Baramulla, petitioner allegedly involved in the molestation of minor/little girls at Old Golf Ground, Sector Headquarter BSF Baramulla intending to outrage their modesty; that the allegations were levelled by the wife of one Dy.Commandant Ajith Kumar V and this was not mentioned by the respondents; that the petitioner was not allowed to produce the witnesses in his defence i.e Constable K P Pandey, Constable Yogesh Mehta of 55 Bn and Constable Khem Chand of 191 Bn, while Constable Bhajan Singh has stated in favour of the petitioner; that the respondents have not appreciated that nobody has even stated anything against the petitioner, while the little girls have also not stated anything against the petitioner, moreover, the said Dy Commandant has also beaten the petitioner and the inquiry was done by 109 Bn, but nothing has been mentioned in the order. The respondents have also conducted vigilance inquiry through Head Constable Jai Bhagwan of Frontier Headquarter Baramulla and nothing was proved against the petitioner; that the Commandant has issued an order dtd. 27/11/2004 by virtue of which the petitioner was placed under close arrest.

(3.) The grievance projected by the petitioner is that the respondents have not conducted any proper inquiry as required under the provisions of BSF Act and the Rules and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner issued an Order dtd. 29/11/2004, whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been awarded to the petitioner and he was struck out from the strength. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the DG of BSF on 7/12/2004 but till date the appeal has not been decided and it was finally prayed that the petition be allowed and the order impugned be quashed.