The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in a disciplined force and upheld the conviction and removal from service based on overwhelming evidence of misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - Present writ petition has been filed challenging orders dated 07/08/2019 (conviction order), 2nd January, 2020 (order of appellate authority) and 14th May, 2020 (order in revision) as well as the Summary Force Court [SFC] proceedings. Petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his removal and grant him all the consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who was a Constable (GD) in Sashastra Seema Bal [SSB], while performing his duties in Panchayat election-2018 at Udhampur (J&K) in the intervening date of 20.l1.2018 and 21.11.2018 at about 2315 to 0100 hrs misbehaved with the civilians at the counting place as well as his senior officers and used threatening language with the superior officer i.e. SI/GD Shailesh Kumar, when the superior officer tried to interfere in the aforesaid matter. It was also alleged that the petitioner had pushed and assaulted another senior officer ASI(GD) Subhash Chand Pathania which had resulted in the said senior officer falling into an abyss. Accordingly, the petitioner was charged under Sections 22 (a), 22(b) and 23(2)(a) of the SSB Act 2007. The petitioner was tried by Summary Force Court at 42nd Bn SSB Baharaich on 07.08.2019 wherein he was found guilty of all charges. The disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant, 42nd Bn SSB awarded the punishment of "Removal from service" on 07.08.2019 to the petitioner.

3. Against the removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed, vide order dated 2nd January, 2020. The petitioner further filed a revision petition that was also dismissed vide order dated 14th May, 2020.

4. He has now filed the present petition impugning all the three orders namely conviction order dated 7th August, 2019, appeal order dated 2 nd January, 2020 and revision order dated 14th May, 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had never admitted his guilt in the present case. He further states that there is no evidence on record to prove that the petitioner had pushed ASI(GD) Subhash Chandra Pathania into a ditch.

6. He emphasizes that similar proceedings had been initiated against one Sh Bajrang Thakur, but he has been awarded only penalty of Reduction of two stages, whereas, the petitioner against whom there is no evidence regarding alleged charges has been arbitrarily removed from service.

7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the scope of judicial review of the findings of a SFC is limited. In pursuance to the powers under Article 226, this Court is only required to examine whether the SFC has been properly convened and the proceedings of the SFC are in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the BSF Act and the BSF Rules. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, would not interfere with the findings of a SFC unless the findings are ostensibly perverse i.e. wholly without any supporting evidence or against the evidence on record.

8. In the present case, the record of evidence shows that PW1 SI(GD) Satish Kumar had categorically stated in his statement that the petitioner had pushed ASI(GD) Subhash Chandra Pathania. He had also stated that ASI(GD) Subhash Chandra Pathania was carrying a loaded carbine at the time of this incident and the same could have lead to a mishap.

9. Similarly, another witness being PW7 HC(GD) Satnam Singh had supported the case of the prosecution and gave a detailed description of PW3 ASI(GD) Subhash Chandra Pathania being pushed into a ditch by the petitioner. In fact, the officer who had been pushed i.e. PW3 ASI(GD) Subhash Chandra Pathania was also examined as a witness and he has corroborated the statements of the aforesaid witnesses.

10. It is pertinent to note that while cross-examining these witnesses, the petitioner had not challenged their statements wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had pushed ASI (GD) Subhash