SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The petitioner was enrolled with the BSF as a Constable (Radio Operator) on 12.8.1991. On account of alleged misconduct of the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner whereby the charge was made out under Section 20 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Section 20 of the said Act deals with striking or threatening superior officers. The offence charged was stated as under: “in that he, at Tac HQ Budhal on 24.9.97 at 1845 Hrs entered in Signal Centre and stepped up towards chair of Inspr (T Ram Avtar Yadav) with slapping hand and asked him forcibly to forward his application.”

2. The petitioner was charged by the Summary Security Force (SSF) on 23.10.1997 for committing an offence under Section 20 (a) of the said Act.

3. The substance of the charge is that the petitioner went to his Inspector requesting him for his signatures on a request letter the subject of which was not known. He was asked to wait but started speaking loudly for the application to be forwarded and moved towards his superior while raising a hand to hit him and the superior on such conduct got up and saved himself and with the assistance of the persons present removed the petitioner from his office. The petitioner is stated to have run away towards the lines thereafter.

4. In the SSF proceedings the statement of the petitioner was recorded. It is the case of the petitioner that after reading the contents of the application, the petitioner was informed that the application could not be forwarded. The petitioner claims to have stated that the application has to be forwarded only through the Inspector at which stage he was abused and the petitioner protested and that he never raised his hand. The petitioner was found guilty on the plea of guilt being acknowledged by him and was awarded with the sentence of dismissal from service on 23.10.1997.

5. The petitioner aggrieved by the said decision preferred an appeal before the DG (BSF) which was dismissed on 2.11.1999. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rewari on 27.11.2000 but withdrew the same on 10.2.2005 to avail of the appropriate remedy and has thereafter filed the present petition.

6. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner as submitted by learned counsels for the parties undisputedly rests on the plea of guilt on the part of the petitioner. The original record is therefore perused, which is a printed format and the blanks have been filled in. The plea of guilt has been recorded but is not countersigned by the petitioner. Similarly in respect of the question relating to mitigating circumstances for sentence, the blank has been filled in stating that the petitioner did not want to make any statement. The questions and answers are recorded in the following terms: “The accused No.91588004 Rank NK/RO Name Subhash Chander of 58 BN BSF is found “Guilty” of the charge (all the charges). The AOE is read (Trnaslated) explained marked Exb “K” signed by the court and attached to the proceedings. Q. Do you wish to make any statement in reference to the charge or in mitigation of punishments” Ans The accused says No (No) Q. Do you wish to call any witness as to character” Ans No”

7. It may be noticed that the questions are in typed format and the answers “No” are written in red ink which are not countersigned. It is thereafter that the verdict has been delivered.

.8. The petitioner has raised the plea of procedural irregularities, disproportionality of sentence and the factum of the petitioner never having pleaded guilty. It is submitted that the plea of guilt could not have been recorded without getting an endorsement on the part of the petitioner by his signatures. Learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.254/2001 titled The Chief of Army Staff and Ors. Vs. Ex. 142

Click Here to Read the rest of this document