Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Commandant of the 105th Battalion (Bn.), Border Security Force (BSF) vide which the petitioner was dismissed from Service. He has also assailed the Order dated 22.04.2009 passed by the Director General (DG), BSF, rejecting his Statutory Petition under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 (in short, „the BSF Act‟).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner joined the BSF as a Constable (General Duty) on 22.10.1990, and upon successful completion of his basic training, he W.P.(C) 10858/2009 20:38:43 reported to the 105th Bn., BSF, on 03.11.1991. Initially, the petitioner was posted in 'B' Company, 105th Bn.,BSF and in June,2008, the said Company was deployed at BSF post Asharidah in the State of West Bengal.

                          THIRD             AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO
                          CHARGE            GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF
                          BSF ACT-1968      THE FORCE
                          SECTION-40
                                            In that he,
                                            at Jiyaganj at 1210 hrs. on 25.6.08 had
                                            gone alone to purchase coal & fresh
                                            vegetable of BOP hunger against the
                                            instruction that men must move in buddy
                                            pair.
                          FOURTH            AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO
                          CHARGE            GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF
                          BSF ACT-1968      THE FORCE
                          SECTION-40
                                            In that he,
                                            at Jiyaganj at 1210 hrs on 25.6.08, was
                                            found in possession of mobile phone
                                            (Modle Nokia-3110) against the
                                            instructions of 105 BN BSF)."

24. Additionally, he contended that the petitioner was provided with the copies of all necessary documents, such as the ROE proceedings and the Charge-Sheet, well before the commencement of the SSFC trial, in accordance with the provisions of the BSF Act and the BSF Rules.

25. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner pleaded "Guilty" and as a result, the procedure under Rule 142 of the BSF Rules was adopted, rather than Rule 145. Moreover, there was no requirement under the BSF Act and the BSF Rules for an accused person to sign the SSFC proceedings after pleading "Guilty" or "Not Guilty", and therefore, his signature on his "Plea of Guilty" was not obtained.