( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 2, Director General of Border Security force (for short bsp ), dismissing the statutory petition filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence passed by the Summary Security Force Court (for short sspc ) under the Border Security Force act,1968.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was enrolled in the BSF as constable/radio Operator on 9/3/1989. Thereafter, he was promoted on 15/9/1990 as Naik/operator.

( 4 ) ON 6/10/1995 at 1 p. m. he requested his immediate superior Sub Inspector (S. I.) Suresh Chand to forward his application to the higher authorities for sanction. He refused to do so. It is alleged that the petitioner was quite upset with the reply of S. I. Suresh Chand and he caught him by his neck and pushed him in the presence of other personnel. This of course is denied by the petitioner.

( 5 ) SUB Inspector Suresh Chand proceeded for border on 7/10/1995. He came back on 9/10/1995 and was summoned by his superior Assistant Commandant M. A. Sayeed and he asked him to give a written complaint regarding the incident. The Summary Security Force court trial was held and the petitioner was asked to nominate a suitable officer as his friend to assist him at the trial. He forwarded the name of Shri Ramanand, assistant Commandant, but the officer was on leave. The petitioner was asked to nominate another person on 20/3/1996. On the same day, he nominated S. I. D. K. Joon as a friend of the petitioner and after some time the trial of the Summary Security Force Court started. The entire trial was concluded in one sitting and the petitioner was found guilty. He was convicted and dismissed from service.

( 6 ) AGAINST the dismissal, the petitioner filed a statutory complaint which was dismissed by the Director general,bsf. The petitioner aggrieved by that order has preferred this. writ petition on several grounds.

( 7 ) THE petitioner has prayed that the order of respondent No. 2 rejecting his statutory petition challenging the, validity of the impugned trial conviction and sentence be quashed and the petitioner be given all consequential benefits. According to the petitioner the trial court proceedings are also liable to be quashed being biased and prejudiced.

( 8 ) SHOW cause notice was issued and in response to that a counter affidavit was filed by Shri K. S. Walia deputy Inspector General, BSF. He mentioned about the antecedents of the petitioner. According to him the petitioner was not a disciplined official and was reprimanded and punished on earlier occasions also In the counter affidavit it is not denied that though the incident took place on 6/10/1995 but the complaint was only filed on 9/10/1995.

( 9 ) IT is also not denied that the respondents had earlier nominated M. A. Sayeed as a friend of the petitioner to help him in the trial. According to the petitioner the complaint was lodged at the behest of m. A. Sayeed and according to the petitioner he was unkindly disposed towards him. On petitioner s objection M. A. Sayeed was changed and the petitioner gave the name of Ramanand,assistant Commandant, but he was on leave. The petitioner was asked to nominate another officer. On 20/3/1996 the respondents nominated s. I. D. K. Joon as a friend of the petitioner. After some time trial;of Summary Security Force Court began and was concluded on the same date. The petitioner was found guilty of : the charges and was convicted and dismissed from service.

( 10 ) IT has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has not been accurate recording of the proceedings in the trial. It has also come in the evidence that the complaint was lodged at the behest of assistant Commandant M. A. Sayeed.

( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to two most significant aspects of this case ~

(1) when the incident admittedly had