RANJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition making following prayers:-

(2.) Brief facts required for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Indo-Tibet Border Police Force (herein after referred to 'ITBP') on 10/09/1987 and was promoted on the post of Lance Naik. While the petitioner was posted at ITBP, it appears that a complaint was received by the Commandant against the petitioner that the petitioner had been involved in taking illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 4 lac @ Rs. 40,000.00 from ten civilians of the Rajasthan State; Rs. 40,000.00 from one Rajneesh Kumar and Rs. 15,000.00 from one Abdul Latif during 1997. An enquiry was conducted and it was reported that the petitioner was posted at 23rd Battalion of ITBP and had been allowed to keep his family from 01/11/1996 to 30/10/1997 and he remained at the Headquarters of the said battalion itself and there was no chance of the petitioner having been involved in the alleged incident and there was a doubt expressed of any such charge being true. However, it appears that the charge-sheet was issued to him under Sec. 44 (e) of the ITBP Act 199 On the basis of the charge-sheet, Summary Force Court conducted the trial and on 29/05/1998 promulgation was declared by the Summary Force Court holding the petitioner guilty and he was removed from service with immediate effect i.e. 29/05/1998 and the suspension period was treated as dies non vide order dated 29/05/1998 itself.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a statutory appeal and claimed that he was only charged on the basis of complaint of civilian Rajneesh and Abdul Latif against whom criminal case had been registered and there was a charge against them of having collected Rs. 4 lac from individuals. It was also stated that when the petitioner came to know of such an action, he protested and in vengeance, the said persons had also made a complaint against him regarding collecting of the said amount from them. An argument was also raised by the petitioner relating to the wrongful trial conducted by the Summary Force Court and it was pointed out that as per Rule 42 of the ITBP Rules 1994, the Summary Force Court could not have conducted the trial as it involved persons who were not subject to the Act and whose identity was known. The appellate authority vide order dated 21/12/1999 dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Summary Force Court.