Heard M.H. Ahmed, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. B. Chakravarty, the learned CGI appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a former Head Constable (Ministerial) in the 15th Battalion of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Bongaigaon and was charged with violation of good order and discipline, under Section 43 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the SSB Act”), for having entered the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion at around 0015 hours, on the intervening night of 14th – 15th April, 2013. He was charged with indisciplined conduct leading to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack.

3.1. The Head Constable was apprehended inside the Mahila Barrack by six female constables and when the matter was reported to the superiors, a hearing was arranged by the adjutant for the petitioner. He was placed under suspension on 15.4.2013 and the offence report under Rule 44 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the SSB Rules”) was submitted against the petitioner.

3.2. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges and the Deputy Commandant of the Battalion, was ordered to ensure the Record of Evidence (ROE).

4. During the ROE, the statements of prosecution and defence witnesses were recorded in presence of the petitioner and he was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Then the ROE was submitted by the Deputy Adjutant and after due consideration of the same, the battalion Commandant heard the petitioner and under the SSB Rules, the Summary Force Court (SFC) under Section 82 of the SSB Act, was ordered against the delinquent Head Constable.

5. Before the SFC on 29.4.2013, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to both the charges and accordingly the evidence was recorded. Thereafter the SFC had found the petitioner to be guilty of the charges and initially ordered for his dismissal on 29.4.2013 (Annexure-4). But subsequently, the penalty of dismissal was converted to removal from service, on 21.6.2013 (Annexure-5), by the Commandant of the Battalion. The resultant Appeal filed by the delinquent Head Constable was rejected at first, as time barred on 6.12.2013 but later on, the Appellate Authority upheld the disciplinary action, under its order dated 24.1.2014 (Annexure-8)

6.1. Assailing the legality of the disciplinary action, the learned Counsel Mr. M.H. Ahmed submits that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity during the ROE and the SFC procedures. He submits that although the evidence of Constable M.C. Alengwon (PW-1) was recorded in the ROE, this vital witness was not produced during the SFC procedure and thus the adverse finding is contended to be reached, without due evidence.

6.2. The petitioner contends that some of the evidence was recorded in english and since the petitioner was familiar with only Hindi, he was prejudiced and was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend the charges.

6.3. Referring to the evidence of two defence witnesses i.e. Pankaj Dubey and John Munna Bara, the petitioner contends that their evidence on the presence of the delinquent in his own Barrack, was not appropriately appreciated in the disciplinary proceeding.

7.1. On the other hand, Mr. B. Chakravarty, the learned CGC produces the original records of the SFC procedure and submits that the petitioner committed a serious mis-conduct by entering into the female barrack on the night of 14th April and therefore, he committed a gross mis-conduct, which cannot be condoned.

7.2. The learned CGC refers to the evidence of many female constables residing in the Mahila Barrack, which establishes unequivocally that, the petitioner entered the Mahila Barrack on the intervening night of 14th – 15 April and therefore he submits that the gross mis-conduct was proved with reliable witness and the delinquent is punishable under the SSB Act and the SSB Rules.

7.3. Referring to the fairness of the proceedings before the ROE an