Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. It was also argued that after the RoE, the Commandant, in view of the depositions taken down, has various options under Rule 51(2)- i) he can dismiss the charge, ii) re-hear the charge and award a summary punishment or iii) try the accused by a Summary Security Force Court ("SSFC") where he is empowered to do so or iv) apply to competent authority to convene a Court for the trial of the accused. In the present case, having formed the opinion that it was necessary to constitute a GSFC to go into the incident after hearing the RoE, the respondents could not have sought recourse to Rule 22. Highlighting that Rule 22 is akin to proviso to Article 311(ii) of the Constitution, enabling the Central Government to dispense with the services of a public employee or a government servant only under extreme circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to hold a trial, it was argued that no such elements were present in the instant case. Learned counsel submitted that the very fact that as many as 13 witnesses deposed during the SCOI and RoE - including the BSF personnel as well as several independent witnesses who corroborated the petitioner's version that they were not at fault, disclosed that holding of a trial was not only practicable but necessary. If the BSF were to conclude that the petitioners were guilty of a serious charge of abandoning their comrades or not resisting the attack, it was a slur on their honour and cast an indelible stigma on their character. Given the nature of the material, i.e. availability of witnesses whose security was not under threat and who were available at all times - even almost two years after the incident, the opinion formed that it was not "reasonably practicable" to hold a trial was without material. It was submitted that the BSF wanted to short-circuit a further proceeding by way of a SSFC which could have resulted in their exoneration and instead resorted to dispense with inquiry altogether and dismissing them from the services. 

       *******                                      *************
.


        64. Kinds of Security Force Courts.--

For the purposes of this Act there shall be three kinds of Security Force Courts, that is to say,--

(a) General Security Force Courts;
(b) Petty Security Force Courts; and
(c) Summary Security Force Courts.
******* *************
70. Summary Security Force Court.--
(1) A Summary Security Force Court may be held by the Commandant of any unit of the Force and he alone shall constitute the Court. (2) The proceedings shall be attended throughout by two other persons who shall be officers or subordinate officers or one of either, and who shall not as such, be sworn or affirmed.
******* *************
74. Powers of a Summary Security Force Court.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a Summary Security Force Court may try any offence punishable under this Act. (2) When there is no grave reason for immediate action and reference can without detriment to discipline be made to the officer empowered to convene a Petty Security Force Court for the trial of the alleged offender, an officer holding a Summary Security Force Court shall not try without such reference any offence punishable under any of the sections 14, 17 and 46 of this Act, or any offence against the officer holding the court. (3) A Summary Security Force Court may try any person subject to this Act and under the command of the officer holding the court, except an officer, or a subordinate officer.
(4) A Summary Security Force Court may pass any sentence which may be passed under this Act, except the sentence of death or of imprisonment for a term exceeding the limit specified in sub-section (5). (5) The limit referred to in sub-section (4) shall be,--
(a) one year, if the officer holding the Security Force Court has held either the post of Superintendent of Police or a post declared by the Central Government by notification to be equivalent thereto, for a period of not less than three years or holds a post of higher rank than either of the said posts; and