Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ml (Jaswant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 27 November, 2013
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1 389 27.11.2013
W.P.18124(W) of 2013 ML (Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.) pg Mr. Moinak Bakshi............for the petitioner Mr. Srijan Nayak Mr. Raja Saha ...........for the Union of India The petitioner was a member of the Border Security Force. He was tried by the Summary Security Force Court (hereafter the 'Court') for offences under sections 40 and 34 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereafter the 'Act'). The Court found him guilty and awarded punishment of dismissal from service. The findings and sentence of the Court were promulgated to the petitioner on 30th April, 2002.
Pursuant to such findings and sentence, the Commandant, 63 Battalion of the Force passed the formal order of punishment dated 30th April, 2002.
Challenging the final order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court on 14th January, 2003. The writ petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of dismissal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court also stood dismissed on 4th April, 2013. The Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned single Judge and held that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. 2 The petitioner then presented this writ petition before the Court on 24th June, 2013 questioning the findings and the sentence of the Court.
It appears that the petitioner has not pursued the remedy provided by section 117 of the Act. I am of the view that the petitioner ought to be granted liberty to pursue such remedy. This writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with a suitable representation for redress of his grievance within a fortnight from date. Should the petitioner approach the competent authority within the time frame fixed above, the authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as early as possible. Decision shall be given on merits and the representation of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.
(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)