UNION OF INDIA Vs. EX CONSTABLE PAPU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal mounts a challenge to the judgment and order dated 28.10.2009 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4597/1997 instituted by the respondent herein, whereby the Summary Security Force Court proceedings conducted against the respondent/writ petitioner have been quashed and the rejection of his statutory petition has also been adjudged to be illegal. The appellants have, thus, been directed to reinstate the respondent/writ petitioner in service.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India and Mr.S.K.Nanda, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

(3.) THE respondents in their reply, while endorsing the validity of the steps, taken including the initiation and conduct of the SSFC and the sentence of dismissal awarded, have averred that the respondent/writ petitioner while serving in 66 Battalion BSF, Jaisalmer on 7.6.1995 at about 1130 Hrs entered the house of HC K.S.Karjee (attached with SHQ BSF Jaisalmer) and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife. That the respondent/writ petitioner was identified to be the trespasser and the miscreant by the lady following which her husband (K.S.Karjee) lodged a written report about the incident, was stated. The respondents averred that the RoE was ordered thereafter and eventually, the respondent/writ petitioner was put on trial by the SSFC with effect from 18th March, 1996 under Section 46 of the Act and he, having been found guilty of charge, was sentenced with dismissal from service. The respondents controverted the imputation of contravention of the provisions of the Rules and pleaded that at all stages, the respondent/writ petitioner had been afforded due opportunity to defend himself, as contemplated in law. That in course of additional RoE, he was afforded the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses but he declined to do so, was mentioned as well. It was asserted that he was heard by the Commandant before he ordered that the RoE be conducted. The respondents stated that the Commandant, after careful study of the RoE, ordered that the respondent/writ petitioner be tried by the SSFC under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. That the sentence of dismissal from service and the rejection of the respondent/writ petitioner's statutory petition, is valid in law in the attendant facts and circumstances, was underlined.