The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental disciplinary proceedings and the need for proportionate punishment, citing precedents to support its decision.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - C.M. No.22619/2021 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P. (C) No.7159/2021

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable/General Duty (GD) with the respondents Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 13th September, 2010. Vide Memorandum dated 1st February, 2019, a vigilance inquiry was initiated against the petitioner regarding his involvement in a recruitment racket. A convening order in respect of a Court of Inquiry was issued on 10th June, 2019 to investigate into the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner. Pursuant to the Court of Inquiry, a Memorandum dated 20th August, 2020 was issued to the petitioner by the office of the Commandant wherein offence under Sections 33 (f) and 43 of the Sashastra Seema Bal, 2007 (SSB Act) was alleged. Subsequently, on 22nd August, 2020, an order for preparation of Abstract of Evidence was issued by the respondents. After the Abstract of Evidence was prepared, a Memorandum dated 31st August, 2020 was issued to the petitioner informing him that a Summary Force Court shall be held against him on charges under Sections 33 (f) and 43 of the SSB Act. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet, annexed as Annexure P-9 to the petition, are set out below:

"Charge No. I

Section 33(f) of SSB Act, 2007

Does any other thing with intent to defraud, or to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person

In that he,

Counterfeits seal/stamp of In-Charge Line Office, SSB, FHQ with intention of committing forgeru which was found in his possession on 06 September, 2017, knowing same to be counterfeit.

Counterfeits seal/stamp of Asstt. Account Officer (Admin) PAO, SSB,(MHA) New Delhi with intention of committing forgery which was found in his possession on 06 September 2017 knowing same to the counterfeit.

Made false railway protection force ID Card in the name of Constable Rakesh Kumar with intent to commit fraud which was found in his possession on 06 September 2017

Charge No. II

Section 43 of SSB Act, 2007

Violation of good order and discipline

ln that he,

Counterfeits seal/stamp of In-Charge Line Office SSB, FHQ counterfeits seal/stamp of Asstt. Account Officer (Admin) PAO SSB, New Delhi, false railway protection force ID card in the name of Constable Rakesh Kumar was found in his possession on 06 September 2017

Charge No. III

Section 43 of SSB Act, 2007

Violation of good order and discipline

In that he,

Was found involved in corrupt practices of taking bribe from the candidates assisted in getting to pass from written and trade test of driver."

4. On 19th October, 2020, the impugned order was passed by the Commandant and the petitioner was found guilty of all charges and awarded a sentence of dismissal from service under Section 51(1)(c) of the SSB Act. The petitioner moved a petition under Section 131 read with Section 169 of the SSB Act in the office of Directorate General, SSB against the order dated 19th October, 2020 which was dismissed by the office of Directorate General vide order dated 16th June, 2021.

5. The aforesaid two orders dated 19th October, 2020 and 16th June, 2021 have been impugned by the petitioner in the present petition.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the chargesheet issued against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the time and place of the incident have not been mentioned in the charge sheet. He contends that in terms of Rule 57(5)(a) of the SSB Rules, the charge sheet is required to state the time and place of the alleged offence. He further relies upon Section 88 of the SSB Act to contend that the trial by the Summary Force Court against the petitioner would be time barred, as it was commenced after a period of three years of the offence, and since no date of offence has been mentioned in the charge sheet, the petitioner ought to be given the benefit of the same.

7. In our view, there is no merit in the said co