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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner through the medium of this petition filed in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks following reliefs :

(i) To quash Order No. Estt/THQ/55Bn/SSFC-SD/04/13354-62 dated 29.11.2004 issued by the Commandant 55 Bn BSF by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service and also to quash the Summary Security Force Court Proceedings and the charges framed against the petitioner, by issuance of writ of Certiorari;

(ii) To issue direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for re-instatement and to allow the petitioner to join and perform his duties on the post of Constable on which the petitioner was working prior to his dismissal from service and to release the salary in favour of the petitioner and to give all other consequential benefits to the petitioner for which the petitioner is entitled and also to treat the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the petitioner re-joins the duty as "on duty" by issuance of writ of mandamus:

(iii) To issue direction to the respondents restraining them to implement the order dated 29.11.2004 and restraining the respondents to fill up the post of petitioner by making appointment or adjustment and also restraining the respondents to treat the period w.e.f 29.11.2004 to the date the petitioner rejoins the duty as "break in service" by issuance of writ of prohibition;

(iv) To issue direction to the respondents to produce all the record of Departmental Proceedings and Summary Security Force Court Proceedings, before this Court by issuance of writ of mandamus;

(v) To declare the Order No.Estt/THQ/55Bn/SSFC-SD/04/13354-62 dated 29.11.2004 and departmental proceedings and also the Charges against the petitioner, as unconstitutional, ultra-vires and contrary to the provisions of BSF Act and Rules by issuance of writ of mandamus.

2. The case of the petitioner as pleaded and projected by him, is that he was enrolled in the Border Security Forces (BSF) on 13.04.1988 as a Constable having No.880073226, undergone training at STC Shillong (Training Centre, Shillong), thereafter he remained posted at different places i.e. Bareily, West Bengal, Srinagar, Manipur, Shillong and Sopore (Srinagar) and the work of the petitioner was appreciated by the superiors under whom the petitioner remained posted from time to time and he had earned I.G and, D.l.G. awards, besides six cash rewards. It has been pleaded that false and frivolous allegations were levelled against the petitioner U/S 46 of the BSF Act and the charge sheet was framed on 27.11.2004 on the allegation of committing a civil offences to minor/little girls with intention to outrage their modesty and the allegations were that on 31.07.2004, while attached with frontier Headquarter BSF Baramulla, petitioner allegedly involved in the molestation of minor/little girls at Old Golf Ground, Sector Headquarter BSF Baramulla intending to outrage their modesty; that the allegations were levelled by the wife of one Dy. Commandant Ajith Kumar V and this was not mentioned by the respondents; that the petitioner was not allowed to produce the witnesses in his defence i.e. Constable K.P. Pandey, Constable Yogesh Mehta of 55 Bn and Constable Khem Chand of 191 Bn, while Constable Bhajan Singh has stated in favour of the petitioner; that the respondents have not appreciated that nobody has even stated anything against the petitioner, while the little girls have also not stated anything against the petitioner, moreover, the said Dy Commandant has also beaten the petitioner and the inquiry was done by 109 Bn, but nothing has been mentioned in the order. The respondents have also conducted vigilance inquiry through Head Constable Jai Bhagwan of Frontier Headquarter Baramulla and nothing was proved against the petitioner; that the Commandant has issued an order dated 27.11.2004 by virtue of which the petitioner was placed under close arrest.

3. The grievance projected by the petitioner i