Back
M. V. MURALIDARAN
Rajeev Kumar Hembram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order of removal from service dated 23.6.2020 and the order of the appellate authority dated 11.1.2021 and to reinstate the petitioner into service.
2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner was serving with Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) since 13.06.2012 up to 23.06.2020 in a post of Constable (General Duty) i.e. CT (GD). The petitioner had an unblemished record for 8 years from the date of his joining till 23.06.2020. On 13.07.2018, the petitioner was performing sentry duty at RP Gate - 1 at 41st Battalion (Bn.), SSB Ranidanga diligently. His duty hours was from 0600 hrs to 0900 hrs and, at about 0854 hrs, he took out his mobile phone to talk with the next personnel who was to take over the charge. The mobile phone was seized by the duty officer JCO ASI (GD) on the spot at the fag end of the duty hours at around 0855 hrs.
2.1. It was further alleged against the petitioner that he altercated and had also cocked his rifle during duty hours in the course of such altercation. However, no pint of allegation ever pontificated that the petition
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents followed the mandate of the BSF Act, 1968 and the Rules of 1969 in conducting the proceedings against the petitioner, leading ....
The sufficiency of evidence, compliance with procedural rules, and the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner were the central legal points established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings conducted in accordance with the BSF Act and Rules, and the plea of guilty entered by the petitioner during the Summary Securi....
The court affirmed that distinct charges allow for separate trials under the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, and the DIG had the authority to annul previous proceedings based on the gravity of the offence.
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
The plea of guilt must be recorded in accordance with the procedural rules, and the absence of the accused's signature on the minutes of the proceedings can impact the credibility of the plea.
The Summary Security Force Court lacked jurisdiction to try civil offences under Section 46 of the BSF Act, except for simple hurt or theft, as per Rule 47 of BSF Rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the procedural requirements for recording the 'plea of guilty' and the need for fair trial guaranteed under the Border Secu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
