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 Security Force Act, Rules, and the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjeev Kumar, J.)

1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court ["Writ Court"] dated 02.11.2019 passed in SWP No. 2715/2002 titled Sunil Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein ["writ petitioner"] seeking quashment of the order passed by respondent No. 3, dismissing the writ petitioner from service w.e.f. 05.05.2001, has been dismissed.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we find it necessary to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to the filing of this appeal.

3. The writ petitioner was appointed as Constable in 71 Bn Border Security Force on 28.05.1990. He proceeded on leave w.e.f. 06.06.2000 to 04.08.2000 to attend his ailing wife. On request, the leave was extended upto 03.10.2000. The writ petitioner claims that he applied for extension of leave, as his wife was not fully recovered, however, the same was not granted by the respondents and consequently, the writ petition was recorded absent w.e.f. 04.10.2000 to 04.02.2001. The writ petitioner, as is claimed by him, reported for duty accompanied by his wife on 05.02.2001. He was permitted to resume his duties. On 09.02.2001, the writ petitioner again abandoned his duties and left for home along with his wife. This, the writ petitioner submits, was necessitated because of a serious medical condition of his wife. The writ petitioner claims that he took his wife first to Civil Hospital on 10.02.2001 from where she was referred to Gandhi Dham Hospital in Gujrat for specialized treatment and later shifted to Government Medial College, Jammu. The writ petitioner reported back for duty at Gandhi Dham in Gujrat on 15.04.2001. He was arrested and a Summary Security Force Court was ordered by respondent No. 3. The writ petitioner was tried by the Summary Security Force Court ["SSFC"], which pronounced sentence of dismissing the petitioner from service.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Director General, Border Security Force but the same also came to be dismissed on 12.08.2002. It is in these circumstances, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition before the Writ Court claiming inter alia quashment of order of his dismissal from service and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service w.e.f. 05.05.201. The decision of the SSFC was challenged before the Writ Court inter alia on the ground that trial of the writ petitioner was conducted in breach of Rule 63, 134, 157 and 166 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 ["the Rules"]. It was the grouse of the writ petitioner that never during trial or thereafter he was given a fair opportunity to defend and that the 'plea of guilty' was erroneously recorded, though, no such plea had been made by the writ petitioner at any point of time.

5. On being put on notice, the respondents filed their objections. In the objections, it was averred that on first occasion the writ petitioner overstayed leave for 61 days and thereafter he remained absent without leave for 43 days and 189 days respectively on two occasions. The period of absence of 43 days w.e.f. 18.01.1992 to 29.02.1992 was regularized by granting him 36 days earned leave and 07 days HPL. Even absence without leave for 189 days was regularized by treating the said period as 'dies non'. The aforesaid leave for 61 days w.e.f. 08.02.1999 to 09.04.1999 was also regularized by granting 61 days earned leave to the writ petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that the writ petitioner was habitual of absenting from service without leave. In the year 2000 also when the writ petitioner proceeded on 60 days earned leave w.e.f. 06.06.2000 to 04.08.2000, on humanitarian ground his earned leave was extended twice by 30 days each. He was, thus, required to resume his duty on 04.10.2000 forenoon but the writ petitioner chose not to join his duty even after expiry of