Punjab-Haryana High Court
Constable Avtar Singh No.91098623 vs The Central Government Through ... on 25 April, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Writ Petition No.101 of 2004 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Writ Petition No.101 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.04.2012
Constable Avtar Singh No.91098623
....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
The Central Government through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi and another
....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
***
Present : Mr.Arun Bansal, advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate,
for the respondents.
***
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner is a constable in 06 Bn BSF, who has approached this Court by way of present writ petition for quashing of proceedings of Summary trial, Security Force Court dated 07.03.2011, the sentence of dismissal thereupon and also for quashing of order rejecting the statutory petition filed by the petitioner.
Noticing the facts in brief, it can be seen that the petitioner was posted in 06 Bn BSF in the year 2000. Sh.C.S.Tosawara, Assistant Commandant was serving as a Coy Cdr. of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that his Coy Cdr. was inimical to him and was looking out for an opportunity to implicate the petitioner in a false case. The petitioner would aver that totally false charge was framed against the petitioner on the ground that his bed sheet had Criminal Writ Petition No.101 of 2004 (O&M) -2- been found disturbed in the bed layout during inspection on 29.12.2000. The petitioner was produced before the Commandant and was imposed the punishment of 14 days force custody. The petitioner has alleged that this punishment has imposed without following any procedure or without supplying any copy of charge- sheet.
The grievance of the petitioner primarily in the present petition relates to what happened thereafter. It is alleged that while the petitioner belt was being removed upon being awarded force custody, he assaulted his Coy Cdr. in the presence of his Commandant. The petitioner, however, has alleged that he has been implicated in a false case. After this incident, the petitioner, however, was ordered to be attached to another Bn namely 191 Bn BSF. He was accordingly charge-sheeted on 02.02.2001.
As per the petitioner, this charge-sheet was prepared even before the receipt of the complaint on 03.02.2001. It is further alleged that without holding any preliminary inquiry under Rule 44 and 45 of the BSF Rules, the petitioner was put to trial by Summary Security Force Court (herein referred as 'SSFC') and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner thereafter filed a statutory petition which was rejected and accordingly have approached this Court through the present writ petition to challenge the punishment of dismissal imposed on him as well as to challenge the proceeding of the SSFC.
The petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 20
(a) of B.S.F.Act, for assaulting his superior officer. The particulars of Criminal Writ Petition No.101 of 2004 (O&M) -3- the charge averred that the petitioner was at the office of Commandant, when awarded 14 days rigorous imprisonment on 29.12.2000 by the Commandant, he assaulted Sh.C.S.Tosawara, Asstt. Commandant, His Coy Cdr. who was standing at the witness to the summary trial. The record of evidence was prepared where company commandant has appeared as a witness. Subsequently, the evidence was also recorded by the officer holding the Court. As many as six prosecution witnesses were examined. The petitioner was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The petitioner had even not addressed a single question to his Coy. Cdr. while he was given opportunity to cross-examine him, who appeared as PW2. Coy. Cdr. (PW2) has given clear evidence that after the award of sentence, Head Constable V.B.Yadav, BHM entered the office and tried to remove the belt of petitioner. While BHM removing the belt, the petitioner objected and said "MAIN BELT UTARNE NAHIN DOONGA, MERI BELT KYUN UTAAR RAHE HO or to the effect (I will not allow my belt to be removed. Why you are removing my belt.) While this was happening, the petitioner turned towards his right and caught hold the Coy Cdr. from his neck with his left hand and hit on the upper portion of his head with his right hand. A result of this, Coy Cdr. got imbalanced and his cap fell down.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to refer to the evidence which was recorded by the Officer holding the trial upon the plea of not guilty offered by the petitioner to a charge as contained in the charge sheet served to him.
In view of this categorical evidence, which is not subjected Criminal Writ Petition No.101 of 2004 (O&M) -4- to any cross-examination, the attempt by the counsel to seek re- appreciation of evidence is neither called for nor would be within the purview of the writ court.
Otherwise, the only ground raised before me to challenge the proceedings and the award of sentence is that preliminary inquiry under Rules 44 and 45 of the BSF Rule was not held by the Commandant in this Case. In this regard, it is urged that charge- sheet was prepared on 02.02.2011 whereas the complaint was on the following date. The averment made in this regard in para 7 of the petition has, however, been denied in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. It is pointed out that the attachment of the petitioner was done to ensure fairness to him as the commandant of 6 Battalion was a witness to the incident of use of criminal force. The allegation for not complying the provisions of Rule 45 of BSF Rule are also denied and it is stated that due hearing as per the provisions contained in Rule 45 BSF was done and record of evidence was directed to be made by commandant 191 Br. BSF on 02.02.2001. It is accordingly pleaded that all the provisions of BSF were duly complied with. Except for these averments made in this manner, no material is pointed out to show non-compliance of any provision of BSF Rules. I am not convinced that there was any violation of the provisions of any Rule calling for interference in the proceedings or the award of sentence.
The petitioner apparently has committed a serious offence being a member of a force which is a disciplined force. A very high standard of discipline can be expected from a persons serving in Criminal Writ Petition No.101 of 2004 (O&M) -5- disciplined force like BSF. The behaviour as depicted by the petitioner was in violation of the discipline in such like forces. The sentence in this case, rather appears to be erring on the side of leniency. Since there is no challenge made to the sentence in the present petition, the same may not need any further comment. There is no merit in the petition.
Accordingly the present petition is dismissed.
(RANJIT SINGH) 25.04.2012 JUDGE mamta