Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. From Section 70 of BSF Act, 1968, it is apparent that Commandant of a unit can hold a Summary Security Force Court and can try any person under his command (except an officer or a subordinate officer) for any offence punishable under the Act and can also award punishment of dismissal from service under Section 48 (1)

(c) of the BSF Act.

9. The case of Pradyat Kumar Bose (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is not relevant on the facts of the present case and the provisions of law governing the issue. The findings in that case were based on the laws governing the post of the Registrar of High Court of Calcutta, which are entirely different from the provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and the BSF Rules, 1969.

33. The sole question before us for consideration is whether under the BSF Act, SSFC is required to give reasons in support of its verdict and whether while disposing of the petition under Section 117 (2) of BSF Act, the appropriate authority is required to give personal hearing as well as reasoned findings.

34. Chapter XI of BSF Rules, 1969 lays down the procedure to be followed by SSFC. Rule 149 (1) deals with the findings. The extract of relevant provision is as under:

Rule 149. Finding.- (1) The finding on every charge upon which the accused is arraigned shall be recorded and except as mentioned in these rules shall be recorded simply as a finding of „Guilty‟ or of „Not Guilty‟.

The bare reading of the above rule shows that the rule does not require SSFC to give reasoned findings. Rule requires SSFC to just record „guilty‟ or „not guilty‟ on every charge.

35. We have given due consideration to the case law relied by the petitioner and the relevant provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and the BSF Rules, 1969. All issues raised before us have been authoritatively dealt with by Supreme Court. In the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ex.Constable Amrik Singh (1991) 1 SSC 654. In this case the Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions under the BSF Act, has clearly held as under:

It therefore is clear from the pronouncement that while disposing of the petition under Section 117 (2), the concerned authorities are not required to give a hearing to the petitioner.

36. The same issue had again come up before the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Union of India and Another vs. Dinesh Kumar (2010) 3 SSC 161. In that case several appeals had been filed by the Union of India and the main contesting respondent in all those appeals were members of Border Security Force. The respondents had succeeded before the High Court which took the view that the orders passed by SSFC and the appellate authority were bad and illegal as there was no reason given by any of these authorities. On that count, the High Court directed remand in all matters to the appellate authority under Section 117 (2) of BSF Act, 1989 for re-writing the order giving reasons in support of the conclusions reached by the same. While dealing with the said issue, the Supreme Court has taken into consideration its findings in the case in Som Datt Datta vs. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 414 and S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 and held that in view of the scheme of SSFC in the BSF Act, 1968 and the BSF Rules, 1969, it is apparent that the SSFC proceedings simply require the recording of the finding of „guilty‟ or „not guilty‟ without giving reasons. Section 149 (1) which relates to the SSFC expressly requires the authority not to give reasons. It is noted that though rule 99 (not relating to SSFC but to other courts under BSF Act) was amended making it necessary for courts to give reasons for finding, the statutory provisions relating to the SSFC were not amended. The court has clearly held that reasons are not required to be given by the SSFC under Rule 149 or by the appellate authority while considering an appeal thereafter under Section 117 (2) of BSF Rules, 1969. It has been clearly held that Rule 99 of the BSF Rules, 1969 is not applicable to the proceedings of the SSFC and that Rule 149 of Chapter 11 of BSF Rules, which deals with the proceedings before SSFC does not require the SSFC to give reasons to its findings. The SSFC is simply required to give its verdict against the person charged as to whether he is guilty and not guilty of the charges.