IMPORTANT POINT
A guilty plea in disciplinary proceedings, if made with understanding, validates the proceedings and the resultant punishment.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 28.08.2012, by which the petitioner was awarded with the sentence of dismissal from service on being found to be guilty of the charges so framed against him. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to an order, dated 07.02.2013, issued on behalf of the Director General, Border Security Force, dismissing the petition so filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 28.08.2012.

3. The petitioner, herein, was recruited as a Constable in Border Security Force, on 13.06.2011, and was thereafter, deputed for undergoing training at the STC, Border Security Force, Jodhpur. It is the allegation levelled against the petitioner that he had without leave, left the said training centre on 12.05.2012 and had returned on 14.05.2012. The petitioner, had, thereafter, again left the training centre on 15.05.2012, and had reported back to the training centre only on 29.05.2012. The petitioner again on 29.05.2012 left the said training centre and reported back to the training centre only on 28.06.2012. The said absence of the petitioner from the training centre, was without obtaining prior leave and/or permission from the competent authority.

4. The petitioner, on rejoining his training centre on 28.06.2012, was placed under ‘close arrest’ on 14.07.2012. Thereafter, it is seen that the proceedings were so initiated against the petitioner, herein, and he was tried by a Summary Security Force Court at STC, Border Security Force, Jodhpur, on 28.08.2012. The petitioner was allowed to choose a friend for the purpose of the conduct of proceedings so initiated against him and a charge-sheet in this connection was also so drawn. The petitioner, during the Summary Security Force Court at STC, Border Security Force, Jodhpur, on 28.08.2012, had pleaded to guilty of all the 3(three) charges so levelled against him and thereafter, by applying the provisions of Rule 142(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969; the Summary Security Force Court at STC, Border Security Force, Jodhpur, sentenced the petitioner to be dismissed from his service and accordingly, the order, dated 28.08.2012, came to be so issued imposing upon the petitioner, the sentence of dismissal from service. As provided under the provisions of the said Act Border Security Force Rules, 1969, and the Rules thereof; the petitioner preferred a petition against the order, dated 28.08.2012, to the Director General, Border Security Force, on 26.11.2012. The said petition was duly considered and vide order, dated 07.02.2013, came to be so rejected.

5. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the proceedings so initiated against the petitioner, herein, has contended that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend the charges so levelled against him. It is further contended by Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, that the respondent authorities had demanded the petitioner to plead guilty to the charges so levelled against him and to sign on the proceedings.

6. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, has submitted that the petitioner being put under ‘close arrest’ on 14.07.2012; he was denied of a due opportunity to have a constructive consultation with the person so appointed as his friend in the proceedings and accordingly, the defence of the petitioner, herein, stood prejudiced.

7. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the petitioner had raised a plea that he had to leave the training centre on account of ailments suffered by his mother but the said aspect of the matter was not appreciated in the proceeding by the Summary Security Force Court at STC, Border Security Force, Jodhpur, while proceeding to impose the sentence upon the petitioner.

8. Mr.