Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Nasibul Islam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of the Commandant/Disciplinary Authority dated April 23, 2021 and the order of the Director General/Appellate Authority dated May 6, 2021.
2. While the petitioner was attached with FTR Headquarter, Border Security Force, North Bengal, Kadamtala as a Constable in 94 Battalion BSF he was served with a charge sheet dated April 3, 2020. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first charge was that he had deliberately and maliciously acted with intention to outrage the religious feeling of a particular religious community by insulting its religion or religious belief. The second charge was that he had morphed photographs of Prime Minister of India and sent to other persons in WhatsApp groups. The third charge was that the petitioner was having contact with some foreign nationals and WhatsApp Group of certain other foreign countries.
3. The petitioner was subjected to trial before the Summary Security Force Court. The Commandant of 94 Battalion, Border Security Force passed an order on April 23, 2020 holding that the petitioner has committed offences under Sections 46 and 40 of the
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.
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 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 court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner based on the past conduct and found no procedural irregularities in the dismissal process.
The court held that a guilty plea obtained under biased circumstances is not valid, necessitating the annulment of the dismissal and reinstatement of the employee.
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 involvement of a prosecution witness as the "friend of the accused" in a disciplinary proceeding violates the principles of natural justice and renders the proceedings invalid.
The Commandant of a unit can issue a chargesheet and preside over a Summary Security Force Court without violating principles of natural justice, provided the accused is given adequate opportunity to....
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
