RANJIT SINGH MULTANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner an Inspector in B.S.F. who was attached with F Coy 45 Bn BSF in Jammu has challenged the proceedings of General Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as the G.S.F.C.) held on June 26, 1980 and directed by way of forfeiture of 2 years seniority and severe reprimand. The said sentence was confirmed by Inspector General of B.S.F. Srinagar -Respondent No. 3 by his order dated July 23, 1980. On a representation made to the Director General, BSF, New Delhi by the petitioner against the said confirmation the petitioner was intimated by the order dated December 9, 1982 that his petition, which was placed before Director General stood rejected after due consideration. The petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved in this petition by the imposition of the said sentence.

(2.) THE petitioner, while he was working in the Accounts Division in 1973, some case of embezzlement was noticed against him on account of non -reflecting the entry of Rs. 14.400/ - in Ration Cash Book on August 6,1973 as a result of which he was found negligent in discharge of his duties. However, the petitioner was charge sheeted for mis -appropriation of the amount jointly with some other persons and before the G.S.F.C. was charged for an offence of negligence. The petitioner denied the receipt of the said amount on the said date. The court on evidence found that a receipt exhibituted in evidence as Exhibit O in which the date was altered from 15/10 to 0/8. Though the G.S.F.C. in the first instance it is alleged excluded the petitioner of the charge, but the confirming Authority -Respondent No. 3 revised the order and directed the G.S.F.C. to re -assemble on June 25, 1980, which on due deliberations and on the face of the evidence by the order impugned in the writ petition passed on June 26, 1980 held the petitioner guilty and awarded punishments noted hereinabove. The petitioner is aggrieved against the said imposition of punishment, which has been confirmed by respondents 3 and 2.

(3.) IN the petition inter alia apart from challenging the findings on evidence has challenged the constitution of the G.S.F.C. which assembled under the orders of respondent No. 3, who according to the petitioner had no power or authority to do so. It is further alleged that the liability on the petitioner is wrongly placed which is not supported by record and hence the punishment imposed by imposing the sentence as noticed above is liable to be quashed in the writ petition.