DEVI LAL SAHU Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10. 11. 2003 passed by Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter, for short "the SSF Court") which was further confirmed vide order dated 1. 12. 2003 by the D. I. G. B. S. F. Barmer and the order dated 21-22. 9. 2004 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was substantively working in B. S. F. since 5. 9. 1986 and served the respondent Department with utmost sincerity and dedication. During his service tenure, he received cash rewards from I. G. B. S. F. , 9 Commendation Rewards from the D. I. G. And 10 from Commandant. As per the facts of the case, till 2003 only two punishments were inflicted against him with regard to absence without leave and over staying on leave and till 2003 his service record was unblemished and there is no charge against the petitioner for committing any offence involving moral turpitude.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised following grounds to quash the penalty order dated 10. 11. 2003 and order of the appellate authority before this Court : (1) the order impugned passed by SSF Court dated 10. 11. 2003 and confirmed vide order dated 21-22. 9. 2004 by the DIG, B. S. F. , Barmer are arbitrary and illegal and have been passed in very causal manner without going through the evidence available on record; (2) the petitioner never appointed Shri A. K. Tambe as his friend in the proceedings because there was quarrel in between the petitioner and Shri A. K. Tambe, therefore, there was no question to appoint him as friend in the proceedings; (3) the Presiding Officer had committed breach of Rule 48 of the B. S. F. Rules, 1969 because while preparing the record of evidence the Officer acts like a senior clerk only and the only duty assigned to him is to record the evidence as stated by the witnesses and also to take down the questions asked by the accused to the prosecution witnesses and the answers given by them. In fact Recording Officer has no right whatsoever to ask any question to the prosecution witnesses. He can at the most ask the questions to the defence witnesses. Therefore, whole proceedings is in violation of Rule 48 of the Rules of 1969; (4) as per the petitioner, not a single person had seen him to consume the liquor. In fact the so called half filled bottle of liquor was also not recovered at the instance of the petitioner and nobody had seen the petitioner bringing the above mentioned bottle. The said bottle was recovered from open place and the bottle was never sent for F. S. L. to confirm whether it contained liquor or not; (5) the most important ground is that before recording plea of guilty the procedure provided under Rule 142 (2) of the BSF Rules was not complied with which is mandatory in nature.