Judgment · High Court · 2012

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Devi Singh Choudhary, for the petitioner. By the court: By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to order dated 18.01.2011 (Annex.4) whereby petitioner has been punished for three different charges. It is submitted that enquiry into the matter was not held by providing an opportunity of cross examination though Rule 45 of Border Security Force Act, 1969 (for short “the Act of 1969”) mandates for it, accordingly the order of punishment deserves to be set aside. It is also stated that none of the charges could be proved by the respondents. In the aforesaid circumstances also, impugned order deserves to be set aside. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner. I find that petitioner was SBCWP NO.17039/2011 (Rambir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.) 2 served with three charges, out of which, first charge is that he used criminal force on his superior officer on 10.06.2010 about 11.00 hours.

Second charge is that he used threatening language and third charge is for neglecting to obey local orders. Perusal of Annexure – 4 dated 18.01.2011 shows that when petitioner pleaded “Not Guilty”, six prosecution witnesses were produced and cross examined, thus petitioner was provided opportunity to cross examine all the prosecution witnesses. The opportunity aforesaid was availed with the help of next friend of accused, which was appointed as per his choice. The competent authority after appraisal of evidence on record found petitioner to be guilty for all three charges. The order of punishment has been passed accordingly. The allegation of denial of opportunity of cross examination is found to be incorrect in view of the fact that six witnesses were cross examined by petitioner with the help of his friend so permitted by the respondents. If the charges are looked into, they are of grave nature and show petitioner's conduct, who is part of Border Security Force.

He used filthy language as is coming out from the order at Annexure – 4. SBCWP NO.17039/2011 (Rambir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.) Looking to the aforesaid, I do not find violation of 3 Rule 45 of Act of 1969. So far as finding of fact regarding proof of charge is concerned, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 226 of Constitution of India cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the finding recorded by disciplinary authority and thereupon the order of punishment passed vide Annexure – 4. This is more so when there is no perversity therein. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit, hence, the same is dismissed so as the stay application. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. S/No.37 preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.