Marpu Shyamala Rao v. The Commandant, 28 BN BSF, Bikaner, Rajasthan
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the
Provisions considered
- Border Security Force Act, 1968 ss. 19(d), 40
Key paragraphs
- Para 118118. Annulment of proceedings.- The Central Government, the Director-General, or any prescribed officer may annul the proceedings of any Security Force Court on the ground that they are illegal or unjust.” In view of the above said provisions, there is an effective alternative remedy for…
Judgment
This writ petition is filed by a constable working in 28 BN Border Security Force, Bikaner, Rajasthan, against the order, dated 19.11.2005, dismissing him from service pursuant to initiation of disciplinary proceedings in exercise of powers under Sections 19 (d) & 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”).
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that as per Sections 117 and 118 of the Act, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy. Sections 117 and 118 of the Act read as follows:- “117. Remedy against order, finding or sentence of Security Force Court.- (1) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by any order passed by any Security Force Court may present a petition to the officer or authority empowered to confirm any finding or sentence of such Security Force Court, and the confirming authority may take such steps as may be considered necessary to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed or as to regularity of any proceeding to which the order relates. (2) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by a finding or sentence of any Security Force Court which has been confirmed, may present a petition to the Central Government, the Director-General, or any prescribed officer superior in command to the one who confirmed such finding or sentence and the Central Government, the Director-General, or the prescribed officer, as the case may be, may pass such order thereon as it or he thinks fit.
Operative part
Annulment of proceedings.- The Central Government, the Director-General, or any prescribed officer may annul the proceedings of any Security Force Court on the ground that they are illegal or unjust.” In view of the above said provisions, there is an effective alternative remedy for the petitioner either to present his case before the confirming authority or he may further appeal to Director-General or the Central Government to annul the proceedings of the Security Force Court. Hence, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition bypassing the statutory remedies. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the remedies as provided under Sections 117 and 118 of the Act. If such a representation is filed, it is open for the competent authority under Sections 117 and 118 of the Act to consider the case of the petitioner for passing appropriate orders. No order as to costs. GJ __________
21.02.2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Border Security Force Act, 1968 — ss. 19(d), 40.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Feb 2006. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.