IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Kuldeep Kour - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondent
SWP No. 2974 of 2002
Decided on : 04-08-2023
BSF Act - Disciplinary Proceedings - Section 30(b) - Rule 44 - Rule 45(B) - Rule 48 - Rule 65 - Rule 66 - Rule 67 - Rule 68 - Rule 69 - Rule 71 - Rule 78 - Rule 81
Fact of the Case:
The deceased petitioner filed a petition to quash an order forfeiting 15 years of service for promotion and 10 years for pension, and reprimanding the petitioner. The petitioner was charged with dishonest misappropriation of government property. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, alleging violations of the BSF Act and rules, and disproportionate punishments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings followed due procedure and the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge. The General Security Force Court was properly convened, and the punishments imposed were shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The court quashed the order forfeiting 10 years of service for pension and directed the respondents to refix the pension and pay arrears.
Issues: Violation of BSF Act and rules, proper convening of General Security Force Court, proportionality of punishments
Ratio Decidendi: The court's review is limited to evaluating the decision-making process and ensuring compliance with the Act/rules and principles of natural justice. Punishments must be proportionate to the misconduct and not shock the conscience of the court.
Final Decision: The order forfeiting 10 years of service for pension was quashed, and the respondents were directed to refix the pension and pay arrears within three months.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner (now deceased) had filed the present petition for quashing the order No. 35 Bn/Estt/GSFC-MSB/2002/42-45 dated 02.01.2002, by virtue of which 15 years of the service for the purpose of promotion and 10 years of the service for the purpose of pension of the petitioner was forfeited and the petitioner was also severely reprimanded. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the proceedings of the General Security Force Court and the charges framed against the petitioner. The prayer has also been made for quashing the order No. 6/72/2002/Petition/CLO(D&L)/BSF/2661-64 dated 11.03.2002 passed by the Chief Law Officer (D&L) on behalf of the Director-General of BSF, by virtue of which “mercy appeal” of the petitioner was rejected being devoid of merit. After the demise of the original petitioner, the present petition is being prosecuted by the wife of the deceased-petitioner (for reference “the petitioner” shall mean “the deceased-petitioner”).
2. The petitioner after mentioning his past service credentials has stated that false and frivolous allegations were levelled against the petitioner and the charge under Section 30 (b) of the BSF Act was framed against the petitioner on 12.10.2001 on the allegations of dishonestly misappropriating the property belonging to the Government. The false allegations were that at Samba between August 1996 to December 1998, the petitioner while performing the duties of Unit “Q” Clerk dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 87,004.48 received from various Coys of 35 Bn. on account of casual diet charges. It is stated that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,41,992.91 in the Government Treasury through cashier/accountant of 35 Bn. BSF. The treasury receipt was not issued in respect of amount in question and the same was kept pending, as the Commandant during Company Commanders Conference ordered for the stoppage of depositing of the same amount into the Government Treasury and further advised for utilization of the said amount for the improvement of company mess. That was done on the verbal instructions of Commandant during conference. As there was some difference in the amount of money received by the companies, which was required to be refunded, the same could not be done because the Unit was moving and the petitioner was also assigned the duties to hire civil transport from local State Government Authorities, which took considerable time as the movement of the Unit was uncertain and also the disposal of land cases was one of the main concern. During that period, the petitioner also fell ill and remained under treatment for 70 days. During the illness, the unit of the petitioner moved to new location and HC Rajinder Parsad visited the home of the petitioner to seek his help in sorting out the board proceedings of tentage required to be handed over to the incoming unit. The petitioner enquired from him regarding his office almirah, which was kept double locked in the office, as the petitioner had kept the cash in almirah and instructed Rajinder Parshad to look after almirah. The petitioner after recovering from illness and after rejoining enquired about the said Almirah from HC Ramesh Chand, who told the petitioner that his office almirah had been kept in the store duly locked and a paper patch was pasted by Subedar J P Nathani. The petitioner had not misappropriated any amount, as the amount was lying in the almirah and was deposited in Government Treasury vide receipt No. GG-154873 dated 23.12.1999.
3. The petitioner has challenged the orders impugned and also the proceedings of the General Security Force Court on the grounds that the respondents have not followed any of the provisions of the BSF Act and the rules framed thereunder. In the petition, the petitioner has hardly left any rule, which as per the petitioner, has not been violated by the respondents. As per the petitioner, the whole of the proceedings initiated and conducted were contrary to the BSF
Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi and ors. v. Union of India & ors reported in 1982 AIR(SC)1413
Punishments must be proportionate to the misconduct and not shock the conscience of the court.
Termination of service is permissible under Section 10 of the Border Security Force Act when the trial is deemed impracticable or inexpedient, especially after non-confirmation of charges by the Conf....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings conducted in accordance with the BSF Act and Rules, and the plea of guilty entered by the petitioner during the Summary Securi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents followed the mandate of the BSF Act, 1968 and the Rules of 1969 in conducting the proceedings against the petitioner, leading ....
The sufficiency of evidence, compliance with procedural rules, and the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner were the central legal points established in the judgment.
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.
Judicial review under Article 226 extends to the examination of the decision-making process in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the findings are rational and supported by credible evidence.
Article 351-A of CSR empowers the Governor to institute or continue inquiry after retirement.
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of The Constitution of India and the principle that the High Court shall not reappreciate the evidence or act as a ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.