Back
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, GAURANG KANTH
Rajeev Kumar Hembram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant using mobile phone (Para 3 , 5) |
| 2. court of enquiry ordered (Para 4) |
| 3. sfc found appellant guilty (Para 6) |
| 4. annulment of sfc proceeding (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. grounds of appeal (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. authority of dig (Para 15) |
| 7. main issues for decision (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. charges distinct and separate (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47) |
| 9. authority of dig upheld (Para 44) |
| 10. appeal dismissed (Para 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing the prayer to set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 01.01.2021 upholding the decision and finding of the Summary Force Court (for short SFC) wherein the appellant was found guilty under Sections 43 and 44(c) of the Sashastra Seema Bal, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and awarded punishment of dismissal of service under Section 51(1)(c) of the Act.
Factual matrix:-
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-
3. On 13.07.2018 appellant was performing sentry duty at RP
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of jurisdiction of the DIG, BSF to alter the charge and direct retrial of the appellant, as well as the violation of principles of natural....
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.
As per Rule 27(a) of Rules of 1949, punishment of dismissal or removal from service including that of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a specific period can be imposed by Commandan....
The Summary Security Force Court proceedings were flawed due to significant delay and lack of adherence to natural justice, rendering the dismissal of the petitioner unlawful.
A Summary Security Force Court cannot try charges under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, summarily without established immediate necessity, and procedural violations in recording a ....
The Summary Security Force Court validly conducted proceedings even with the petitioner’s psychiatric condition, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements and the uniqueness of each case.
Disciplinary punishment must align with the severity of the misconduct, and excessive penalties can be subject to judicial review and modification.
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
