Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Ssb act in Babu Halder vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 2023Matching Fragments
from service passed by the appellate authority on 26.10.2020 affirming the order of the Summary Force Court dated 12.06.2020.
2. The petitioner was served with the Memorandum of charges dated 09.06.2020 while he was posted at the 57th Battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal (for short "SSB") and was holding the rank of Constable (G.D.). The petitioner was charged under Sections 21(d), 23(1), 22(b) and
(c) and 24(c) of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (for short "SSB Act") and was tried by the Summary Force Court. Upon conclusion of trial the Summary Force Court (for short "SFC") found the petitioner guilty of all the four charges and the sentence of dismissal from service was awarded on 12.06.2020. Challenging the said order dated 12.06.2020, petitioner preferred an appeal and the Inspector General, Frontier SSB, Headquarter at Ranikhet, being the appellate authority, upheld the punishment of dismissal from service by an order dated 26.10.2020.
3. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition, contended that principles of natural justice has been grossly violated as the petitioner did not get any opportunity to produce witness as none was willing to depose against the authority. He further contended that the petitioner also did not get any assistance of a legal practitioner. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. He next contended that the petitioner could not appear at parade due to his illness. He contended that the allegation against the petitioner that he used threatening/insubordinate language is without any basis as the petitioner cannot speak Hindi language. By placing reliance upon Section 23(1) of the SSB Act, Mr. Majumder contended the second charge do not fall within Section 23(1) of the SSB Act.
4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the Union of India contended that the respondent authority after following the provisions of the SSB Act and the rules framed thereunder held the petitioner guilty of all the charges and was awarded the sentence of dismissal from service.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. Four charges were leveled against the petitioner. The first charge was under Section 21(d) of the SSB Act that the petitioner without sufficient cause failed to appear at the time fixed at the parade or place appointed for exercise or duty. The second charge was disobedience to superior officer under Section 23(1) of the SSB Act. The third charge was under
Section 22(b) and (c) of the SSB Act for using threatening and insubordinate language to officers. The fourth charge was under Section 24(e) of the SSB Act that the petitioner neglected to obey the general, local or other order.
7. Pursuant to direction passed by this Court the proceedings of SFC was filed. It appears from the said proceedings that the SFC was held by the Commanding Officer and the proceedings were attended by two other persons as per the provisions of the SSB Act.