JASWANT SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of order dated 09.02.2004 passed by General Security Force Court by which the petitioner was sentenced to severe punishment, namely, reduction of seniority of the petitioner in the rank of Sub Inspector, forfeiture of three years past service for the purpose of pension and severe reprimand. The petitioner also seeks quashment of order dated 08.05.2004 which was confirmed by Inspector General, Border Security Force, Tripura confirming the sentence. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the petitioner to its original position with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector in Border Security Force vide order dated 011.1998 and at the time of filing writ petition, the petitioner was posted in Jammu as Inspector. The petitioner after completion of his training was posted on the post of Sub Inspector, BSF with 64 Bn of BSF which was stationed at Lamzang Churachand pur District Manipur. The petitioner on 15.02000 was deployed as part of patrol party in counter-insurgency operation. On 15.02000, two rounds of bullets accidentally went out from the 9 MM Carbine sub-automatic weapon carried by the petitioner. One of the stray bullets hit on the ground whereas other bullet hit Constable Girish Chand on his right hip, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Police Station Manipur received the FIR on 15.02000, however the same was not registered.

(3.) Court of Enquiry was held during the month of Feb., 2000 against the petitioner which was presided over by Deputy Commandant of the Border Security Force. In the Court of Enquiry during investigation, the statements of as many as seven witnesses were recorded. The Court of Inquiry vide order dated 22.02.2000 after examining entire evidence and the material on record came to the finding that the firing of gun shots from the weapon carried by the petitioner was not intentional but the same was fired inadvertently from his carbine machine.