Ujjal Bhuyan, J. -- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 08.09.2006, passed by the Commandant of 135 Bn., Border Security Force (BSF), dismissing him from service of BSF.

2. Appellant was serving as Constable in BSF. At the relevant point of time, he was posted at 135 Bn. Head Quarter, Fatikchera in the State of Tripura and was assigned duties of “Dak Runner”.

3. An offence report was submitted against the appellant charging him with dishonest misappropriation of property belonging to persons subject to the BSF Act, 1968. Following a Summary Security Force Court (Summary Court) proceeding, appellant was dismissed from service by the Commandant vide order dated 08.09.2006. Statutory petition filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order was rejected by the Director General, BSF, vide order dated 06.02.2007.

4. Aggrieved, appellant, as the writ petitioner, challenged the said dismissal order before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2163/2008. Challenge to the dismissal order was made on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the BSF Act, 1968, as well as under the BSF Rules, 1969 were not followed, resulting in denial of fair procedure to the appellant which adversely affected the decision making process. Appellant was forced to depose against himself and, therefore, it was a clear case of self-incrimination. Appellant was also compelled to accept a defence assistant of the choice of the Commandant who misguided him. Record of the proceedings of the Summary Court was not sent to the higher authority for confirmation as is the requirement under section 115 of the BSF Act, 1968. Appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of mechanically without proper application of mind.

5. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents, who filed a detailed affidavit. Stand taken in the said affidavit was that appellant was assigned the duties of dak runner from Battalion Head Quarter to Frontier Head Quarter, to post offices at Salbagan/Agartala and to the State Bank of India branches at Salbagan/Agartala. He used to carry money of the battalion members to the bank and post offices for remittance to their families. During the months of May/June, 2006, some of the battalion personnel, who had given money to the appellant for remittance to their families, reported that their families had not received the money sent by them. On the basis of such complaint, appellant was charged as above. He was tried by the Summary Court in which he admitted to have misappropriated the amount. Following the procedure as prescribed under the BSF Act and the BSF Rules, appellant was dismissed from service. His statutory petition was duly considered by the higher authority, but was rejected as it was found that there was no ground to interfere with the punishment imposed. Further appeal filed by the appellant was not entertained as the statutory petition of the appellant was already considered by the authority. The respondents denied the grounds urged by the appellant and sought dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 26.11.2013 found that the procedure followed in the Summary Court was consistent with the procedural requirements and no procedural infirmity was found. Learned Single Judge also declined to entertain the plea of disproportionality of the penalty imposed by holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a lesser punishment would not be justified. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

7. Hence this appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. KK Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. RD Sihota, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. R Bora, learned Central Govt. Counsel for the respondents.

9. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel has elaborately referred to the various provisions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document