WRIT PETITION NO. 360(SS) OF 2006 v. Union of India
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Union of India, through its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
Director General of Border Security Force Block No. 10 C.D.O. Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Commandant 191 Battalion, Border Security Force, C/o 56 A.P.O. ……………Respondents.
Mr. Vivek Shukla, Mr. Bipin Mohan Pingal and Mr. Bhavnesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A. Bhargava, Advocate for the Central Government. Dated: 10.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 17.10.2005 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). Briefly stated, the petitioner was recruited as Constable in Border Security Force in a recruitment rally on 16.07.1990 after completing all the formalities the petitioner was sent for necessary training and after completing rigorous training the petitioner was inducted in 191 Battalion of Border Security Force and was allotted a number being 90254818. According to the case of the petitioner, he was posted in Jammu Kashmir, Punjap, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal and performed his duties with utmost honesty and sincerity.
2 Immediately before his dismissal, petitioner was posted at Naka Point No. 2 at B.O.P. Pipli, District Nadiya West Bengal. On 19.07.2005, the respondent complained that the petitioner has accepted bribe of rs. 800/- form Smuggler as illegal gratification for which he was charge-sheeted U/s 46 of Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After service of the abovesaid charge sheet upon the petitioner, he was tried U/s 46 of Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is known as summary Security Force Court. During the course of summary trial the petitioner remained under close arrest and five prosecution witnesses were examined, but according to the petitioner, he was not given any opportunity to cross examine them and similarly he was refused to examine the defence evidence in his favour and the petitioner was forced to sign the statement recorded.
Vide order dated 11.10.2005, one Sri Vijay Kumar Assistant Commandant has been given the charge to inform the petitioner/accused to remain ready for trial. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court did not duly clarified the fact and circumstances of the case and ignored a very important fact that the entire summary trial proceedings were based on the information of an informer and there was not even an iota of direct evidence against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the Constable No. 94455632 namely Ashok Kumar too charge sheeted along with the petitioner for same offence for the same occurrence, but concerned authorities imposed less harsh punishment upon 3 him i.e. a quarter guard of 89 days and against Sri Ashok Kumar same quality of evidence was adduced. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal provided U/s 117 (2) Border Security Force 1968 before the respondent no.
Operative part
2 on 29.10.2005, but, the respondent no. 2 has not decided the same as yet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has unblemished service record and it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe of rupees of 800/- and similarly there is no evidence on record that any witness has ever seen him accepting the bribe of Rs. 800/- while discharging the duty. Therefore, in view of the above, the respondent no.2/Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 29.10.2005 within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
10.03.2006 Rathour (Rajesh Tandon, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7.
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.