Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Ranjeet Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 3 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 5587 of 2017
Decided on : 13-11-2024
(A) Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 - Sections 21(a), 23(1), and 38(a) - Dismissal from service - Petitioner, a Constable, was dismissed for holding a fake identity card and disobeying orders - Procedural lapses in the Summary Force Court proceedings were alleged but found insufficient - Dismissal upheld as proportionate to the offences committed. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Court will not interfere with disciplinary actions unless there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice or the punishment is grossly disproportionate. (Paras 19-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service after being found guilty of possessing a fake identity card and disobeying orders while investigating a fake currency racket.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was upheld as proportionate to the offences committed, despite claims of procedural irregularities.
Issues: The main issues were whether the dismissal was justified and if procedural lapses occurred during the Summary Force Court proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dismissal was justified given the nature of the offences and that procedural lapses did not warrant interference.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mrs. R. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was then working as Constable (General Duty) and posted at ‘B’-Coy of 16th Bn., SSB, Kokrajhar, Assam has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 06.08.2013, issued by the Commandant, 16th Bn., SSB (respondent no.4); order dated 16.08.2013, issued by respondent no.4, by which the petitioner was found guilty of charges and was sentenced to dismiss from service; as well as the impugned order dated 28.11.2014, issued by the Deputy Inspector General, Sector Headquarters, SSB, Bongaigaon, by which his appeal was rejected. The petitioner has also prayed that the proceedings of Summary Force Court convened on 16.08.2013 be declared illegal and he has also prayed for directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on service with all consequential benefits and back wages.
3. The case of the petitioner is that at the relevant time, the petitioner was deployed as Intelligence Man at Dadgiri and was assigned a task of collecting intelligence by the SAO, In-charge and on receipt of information about fake Indian currency note, racketeers from one of his source, he informed the SAO, In-charge and on being instructed, the petitioner launched an operation on 08.06.2013. It is projected that the deal of fake currency was to happen at Bongaigaon, but the deal was shifted to Goalpara and later on to Guwahati. When the petitioner reached Guwahati along with his source as well as a person accompanying the source, the petitioner was arrested by the Assam Police in a car theft case near ISBT, Guwahati and was taken to Jalukbari Police Station and questioned. The petitioner took the alibi of a businessman, but when the police interrogated one Kausik Das, his source, he disclosed that the petitioner was a SSB personnel. On a search being made, the police seized from the petitioner cash amount of Rs.5,000/-, a mobile phone, a fake identity card of Sub-Inspector (General Duty) and a golden ring. It is also projected that on being informed, the SAO, In-charge did not defend.
4. Vide notice dated 13.08.2013, the petitioner was informed that a Summary Force Court has convened on 16.08.2013 at 11.00 AM at 15th Bn., SSB, Bongaigaon on the offence under Section 38(a)/23(1)/21(a) of the Sashatra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (SSB Act for short). However, the Summary Force Court was held at 16th Bn. Headquarter, SSB on 16.08.2013 and he was held guilty and dismissed from service. It is projected that the petitioner suffered depression after being dismissed from service under Section 51(1)(c) of the SSB Act. It is projected that after recovery when the petitioner was declared fit, he filed an appeal after about 1 (one) year, which was rejected and accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had given a prior report of the fake Indian currency note deal to be made on 08.06.2013 and he had proceeded to unearth the said racket along with his source, namely, Kausik Das, who came with one Niyema Deo Adhikari. It is also submitted that the fake identity card, which was found with the petitioner was handed over by Kausik Das, his source, but as he found it fake, the petitioner kept the card to prevent Kausik Das from misusing it. It was also submitted that as the petitioner was travelling from his SSB location to Bongaigaon and then to Goalpara and then to Guwahati on being led by Kausik Das, the petitioner could not keep the SAO (Sub Area Organizer) informed. It was further submitted that the petitioner was manipulated in the Summary Force Court to accept his guilt on first and second charges, but he had not plead guilty to the third charge and accordingly, it is submitted that the admission of guilt was non estin the eye of
Dismissal from service upheld as proportionate to the offences of possessing a fake identity card and disobeying orders, despite claims of procedural irregularities.
The plea of guilt must be recorded in accordance with the procedural rules, and the absence of the accused's signature on the minutes of the proceedings can impact the credibility of the plea.
The court upheld the dismissal of an employee for serious misconduct, affirming that the punishment was proportional to the offenses of forgery and corruption, thus rejecting claims of procedural irr....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental disciplinary proceedings and the need for proportionate punishment, citing precedents to support its decision.
The Summary Security Force Court proceedings were flawed due to significant delay and lack of adherence to natural justice, rendering the dismissal of the petitioner unlawful.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the procedural requirements for recording the 'plea of guilty' and the need for fair trial guaranteed under the Border Secu....
The Summary Security Force Court lacked jurisdiction to try civil offences under Section 46 of the BSF Act, except for simple hurt or theft, as per Rule 47 of BSF Rules.
A Summary Security Force Court cannot try charges under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, summarily without established immediate necessity, and procedural violations in recording a ....
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner based on the past conduct and found no procedural irregularities in the dismissal process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
