S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Open Court):-

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 23.05.2013 and 16.09.2013 dismissing him from the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) in which he was working as a Constable (General Duty) [hereafter referred to as “CT/GD”].

2. He complains that a Summary Force Court (SFC) assembled to try the allegations of misconduct, resulting in conviction, is a nullity in law.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a CT/GD in the SSB in 1999. The SSB is governed by the provisions of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (hereafter “the Act”). In the course of his service, while working with the 25th Battalion at Ghitorni, Delhi, on certain allegations of grave misconduct, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.03.2011. The allegation pertained to the misconduct of the petitioner, in assaulting his superior officer – Head Constable (GD) Moti Ram Larja while in C. Coy. at 11.30 PM on 30.03.2011. The charges were framed and a charge sheet was issued, proposing to try the petitioner under Section 22(a) of the Act - striking or threatening the superior officer; Section 23(1) – disobedience of superior officer – i.e. the Commandant; 24(b) – insubordination, and 43 – violation of good order and discipline.

4. The petitioner pleaded “not guilty”. The Record of Evidence (ROE) proceedings were conducted under Rule 51 of the Rules framed under the Act. This was pursuant to the order of the Commandant, requiring evidence to be recorded. It is not in dispute that the ROE was in accordance with the Rules and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses who had deposed. Based upon the ROE, the Commandant – who is empowered to take a further decision under Rule 54, was of the opinion that the charges levelled were grave enough for holding of an SFC. The petitioner was, in the meanwhile, directed to be placed under close arrest and on 15.05.2012, was issued with the charge sheet which stated as follows:

“STRIKING OR THREATENING SUPERIOR OFFICER

Section 22(a) of SSB Act, 2007

In that No. 9960674 CT/GD Vinod Singh (under suspension) of ‘C’ Coy. of 25 Bn, SSB, Ghitorni, New Delhi committed a misconduct in that he allegedly used criminal force on 30/03/2011 against No. 8968379 HC/GD Moti Ram Larja at ‘C’ Coy. at 2330 hrs.

Thus, the said CT/GD committed an offence under Section 22(a) of SSB Act, 2007.

Place: 25 Bn, SSB, Ghitorni, New Delhi.

Dated: 15th May, 2012”

5. On 19.05.2012, the SFC was convened and in the course of its proceedings, the SFC held that the petitioner was “guilty”. According to the order made by the SFC, the petitioner had pleaded “guilty”. The petitioner alleges that he never pleaded guilty and relies upon the appeal preferred under Section 131 of the Act where he clearly said that he never took the plea of “guilty” and that he was never even informed about the charges of the evidence proposed to be led. In short, his case was one of complete denial of having entered the plea of guilt. The petitioner’s appeal was rejected on 16.09.2013. He has, therefore, approached this Court.

6. Learned counsel urges that due compliance with the law would necessarily mean that any plea, especially of guilt, entered by the accused would have to be not only recorded by the Presiding Officer but also signed. It is submitted in this context that even though Rule 144 of the SSB Rules, 2009 which regulates the proceedings in this regard is silent as to the obligation of the concerned authority, i.e. SFC in this case, to record the signatures or otherwise of an accused pleading guilty, nevertheless, in order to maintain the sanctity of the proceedings and to rule out any unfairness, the procedure mandates that such pleas have necessarily to be signed. It is highlighted in this context that Rule 144(2) is specific that before recording plea of guilt, the Court has to necessarily ascertain if the accused understands the nature of charge to which he has pleaded guilty and the Court is further under