CYRIAC JOSEPH C. J.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals are filed against the same judgment and hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE writ appeals arise from W. P. No. 1469/2002. The appellant in W. A. No. 2986/2005 is the petitioner in the writ petition. The appellants in W. A. No. 3161/2005 are the respondents in the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE challenge in the writ petition was against the orders dated 7-10-2001 and 27-2-2002 produced as Annexures-'a' and 'k'. As per Annexures-'a', the petitioner Basavaraj who is a constable in the Border Security Force was dismissed from service with effect from 7-10-2001. As per Annexures-'k' order, the statutory petition filed by the writ petitioner against the dismissal from service was rejected.

( 4 ) ON the basis of an incident which took place on 30-7-2001 in the special train carrying troops from Samba to farrakka, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was tried by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) under the BSF Act. The allegation was that during a quarrel between head Constable Puran Singh and Head Constable B. Balakrishnan, the petitioner intervened and while separating the quarrelling Head constable, the petitioner assaulted his superior officer Puran Singh who fell down and sustained injuries. The SSF Court found the petitioner guilty of charge under Section 20 (a) of the BSF Act and on the basis of the finding of the Court the Competent authority dismissed the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner filed a statutory petition before the 2nd respondent, it was dismissed by the 2nd respondent. Though the petitioner had raised various contentions in the statutory petition, he was informed through Annexures-'k' letter that after a detailed consideration and careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, IG BSF South Bengal rejected his petition being devoid of merit. No reasons were stated in Annexures-'k' order. Aggrieved by Annexures-'a' and 'k' the petitioner filed the writ petition.

( 5 ) IN the impugned judgment, the Learned Single Judge found that the order of conviction passed against the petitioner was not a speaking order and that there was no application of mind by the authority concerned. Though the Learned Single judge observed that strict discipline shall be maintained in the force, he also pointed out that the respondents have not placed on record any material to show whether any action was initiated against P. W. I and P. W. 2 for their quarrelling. Learned Single judge also pointed out that when P. W. 2 was recalled and reexamined he emphatically deposed that he had not seen the petitioner hitting Puran Singh by way of boxing and that the head of Puran Singh might have struck with some hard surface. The learned Single Judge has observed that the SSF Court was biased and prejudiced against the petitioner and that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was with some sinister motive and to settle the scores. The Learned Single Judge has further held that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as true and that the same was proved, it does not call for the major penalty of dismissal from service. The Learned Single Judge has also found fault with the competent authority for not considering the statutory petition of the petitioner with application of mind and for not disposing of the same stating reasons. However, since the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 7-10-2001, the Learned Single Judge refrained from remanding the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration as it would prolong the litigation. Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, the Learned Single Judge held that though the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service he will not be entitled for monetary benefits.

( 6 ) THE writ petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of moneta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document