Point of Law: Scope of judicial review exercised in respect of matters of present kind, court cannot supplant its discretion in place of that which has been exercised by disciplinary authority unless exercise of discretion is found to be perverse.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. This appeal is utterly baseless and a complete waste of time by a recalcitrant erstwhile Border Security Force (BSF) employee. What is worse is the attempt on the appellants part to mislead the court.

2. The appellant has been dismissed from service after being found guilty on all four charges levelled against him. The writ petition was made out in such a manner that the papers pertaining to the first set of charges were appended to the writ petition, but the other papers were not. The impression that was sought to be given in the writ petition was that the writ petitioner admitted his guilt in respect of the two minor charges but there may not have been adjudication on the two major charges.

3. However, what is undeniable is that upon the writ petitioner being found guilty on admission on all four charges and being dismissed from service, he preferred a departmental appeal which was dealt with by an order dated May 11, 2017. A copy of the order is appended to the writ petition. Paragraph 2 of the appellate order, in so far as it summarizes the facts, is set out:

“2. The brief facts of the case are that Ex-Ct A Murli Krishna 123 Bn BSF, the petitioner was tried by a SSFC on two charge sheets containing 02 charges each. The trial proceeded first on the 1st charge sheet containing two charges u/s 40 and 26 of the BSF Act, 1968 for an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force and intoxication respectively. The particulars of the 1st charge sheet averred that he, on 21.02.2016, at about 20:30 hrs visited and entered the house of local female villager namely Romola R/o Village-Ryngku and demanded the liquor. The particulars of the 2nd charge are that he, at BOP Ryngku on 21.02.2016 at about 2030 hrs was found in a state of intoxication. On being arraigned by the Court, petitioner pleaded “Guilty” to both the charges. Thereafter, the Court complied with the provisions of BSF Rule 142(2) wherein he was explained the nature of charges, general effect of his plea of “Guilty” and difference in procedure to be followed consequent to said plea. After having fully satisfied that the petitioner had understood the same and there was no need for the petitioner to withdraw his plea, the Court accepted his plea and recorded findings of “Guilty” on both charges on 1st charge sheet. Thereafter, the trial proceeded on the 2nd charge sheet containing 02 charges u/s 21(1) and 20(c) of BSF Act for disobeying in such a manner as to show a willful defiance of authority a lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office and using insubordinate language to his superior officer respectively. The particulars of the 1st charge averred that he, at BOP Ryngku on 22.02.2016 at about 1000 hrs when ordered by No. 859110718 ASI/GD (CASIM) K.K. Nayak to appear before Coy Comdr as directed by him, refused to do so stating “MURALI KISI SE NAHI MILTA HAI JO KARNA HAI KAR LO” and did not appear before the Coy Comdr. The particulars of the 2nd charge are that he at BOP Ryngku of 123 Bn BSF on 21.02.2016 used abusing language to No. 859110718 ASI/GD (CASIM) K.K. Nayak of the same unit by saying “BAHANCHOD MAI YAHI PAR HUN KAUN BOLA AAPKO” or words to that effect. On being arraigned by the Court, petitioner pleaded “Guilty” to both the charges. Thereafter, the Court complied with the provisions of BSF Rule 142(2) wherein he was explained the nature of charges, general effect of his plea of “Guilty” and difference in procedure to be followed consequent to said plea. After having fully satisfied that the petitioner had understood the same and there was no need for the petitioner to withdraw his plea, the Court accepted his plea and recorded findings of “Guilty” on both the charges on 2nd charge sheet also. The Court also recorded his previous convictions, character and reward etc. and sentenced him “to be dismissed from service” on 01.04.2016. The trial proceedings were countersigned by the