The court held that a guilty plea obtained under biased circumstances is not valid, necessitating the annulment of the dismissal and reinstatement of the employee.

JUDGMENT :

E N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kamal Krishna Parasar, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 24-07-2020, passed by the Commandant, 98 Battalion of Border Security Force, dismissing him from service in pursuance of the decision arrived at in this connection by the Summary Security Force Court(SSFC). The petitioner, herein, has also presented a challenge to an order, dated 19-07-2021, passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal preferred by him and upholding the order, dated 24-07-2020, passed by the Commandant, 98 Battalion of Border Security Force.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:

The petitioner had joined the service of the Border Security Force on 15.06.2011, as Constable(GD). The petitioner while being posted at Jammu Frontier, Border Security Force at Paloura, Jammu(J&K), was found sleeping at his post. The matter on being reported, ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh, had come to the post of the petitioner and on finding him sleeping; had required him to move from his post and proceed to the iron bridge. The petitioner, accordingly, moved towards the iron bridge on his bicycle and was followed by the said ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh on his own bicycle. The petitioner, on reaching the iron bridge; parked his bicycle on the right side of the railing of the iron bridge. It is contended by the petitioner that being frightened, he had on an apprehension of occasioning of an untoward incident, acting on instinct, cocked his rifle. The said ASI(GD) Mithilesh Kumar Singh then held the barrel of the petitioner's weapon by one hand and caught the petitioner with the other. It is further contended that the petitioner, as ordered, had taken out the magazine from his rifle and put it in his pouch. He had also, on being asked by the ASI as to whether he would kill him, had replied that he had not cocked the rifle to kill him. The matter being escalated to the higher authorities, a charge- sheet, dated 12-06-2019, came to be issued to the petitioner, leveling four charges against him.

The charges, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:

It is seen that a record of enquiry was directed to be prepared in the matter. During the preparation of the record of enquiry, the authorities had examined the Departmental Witnesses and the deposition of the petitioner was also recorded. On the preparation of the record of enquiry, the Commandant, 98 Battalion, had informed the petitioner vide the communication dated 21-07-2020, of the convening of a Summary Security Force Court(SSFC) trial at 11AM, on 24-07-2020, and a copy of the record of evidence, additional record of evidence along with an original copy of the charge-sheet, dated 21-07-2020, was forwarded to the petitioner.

It is further contended that a perusal of the charge-sheet, dated 12-06-2019, would go to reveal that the first charge so levelled against the petitioner, was so framed under the provisions of Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. However, the same was modified in the charge- sheet, dated 21-07-2020, to that of an allegation of a misconduct under section 20(a) of the Act of 1968.

It is contended that the charge-sheet, dated 21-07-2020, was so prepared after the record of enquiry was so prepared. The petitioner appeared before the