Distinct charges must be tried separately under BSF Rules to ensure a fair trial and avoid prejudice, as each charge arises from unique circumstances.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.847 of 2018.

2. The factual back ground of the case is as under:

While the appellant was serving as the Chief Medical Officer(CMO), in the 130 Bn BSF at Roshanbagh in Murshuidabad district of West Bengal, a Staff Court of Inquiry (for short SCOI)was held against him on multiple charges. The first of those incidents occurred on 14.02.2015 at Berhampore in the Murshidabad district. Allegedly the appellant on that day slapped one of his subordinates in the office. The second incident occurred on 21.04.2015 at Roshanbagh in Murshidabad district. The appellant on that day allegedly slapped another subordinate staff of the Border Security Force (BSF). In the third incident which occurred on 15.05.2015 in the combined hospital of BSF at Berhampore in Murshidabad, the appellant punched on the face of a head constable of 43 Bn of BSF and the fourth incident occurred on 18.05.2015 in the same hospital at Berhampore when the appellant allegedly slapped on the face of another constable of his own battalion. The appellant participated in the Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI). The Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI) at the conclusion of its inquiry recommended for strict disciplinary action against the appellant under BSF Act and Rules and also recommended to set up a board consisting of senior officers and specialist doctors to assess the suitability of the appellant to continue his service as his conduct 'lacked justification and it was unlike a doctor'. According to the report dated 19.06.2015, such recommendations were made 'with a view to avoid any future mishap in the force'. Finally, the SCOI gave an additional opinion on 18.07.2015 reaffirming its previous opinion and recommendations.

3. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of the commandant of his battalion, charge sheet was laid against the appellant for 06 different charges. The appellant was then informed that trial would be conducted against him for those charges by the General Security Force Court (GSFC) in terms of the BSF Act and Rules. Subsequently, the earlier charge sheet containing 6 charges was recalled and a new charge sheet consisting of 04 charges, as stated above, was served on him. Proceedings before the GSFC commenced on 30.01.2018. The appellant applied for supply of legible copies of all incriminating documents to him. Instead of supplying legible copies of those documents to the appellant, the GSFC took up the case for trial against the appellant. Appellant claimed before the GSFC that a single trial on 04 different charges were in contravention of the provisions of the BSF Rules 1969. The challenge of the appellant was discarded by the GSFC. Appellant challenged the order before the higher authority. He presented a petition under Section 117 of the BSF Act, 1968 against the said order of GSFC seeking stay of the proceedings before GSFC pending consideration of his petition. But, he was informed that the trial before GSFC would commence from 15.06.2018. Aggrieved appellant filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for quashing the orders passed by the Staff Court Inquiry, the charge sheet and the proceedings pending before the GSFC. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 31.05.2018 passed in Crl.Petn. No.28 of 2018 passed by the higher authority of BSF and directed the concerned authority of BSF to dispose appellant's petition filed under Section 117 of the BSF Act on merit within 60 days after providing opportunity of hearing to the partie