JUDGMENT

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. By the present petition, the Petitioner essentially challenges the correctness of the order dated 04.08.2021 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by Respondent No. 5 whereby the Petitioner was found guilty of the charges under Sections 20(b), 20(c), 22(a), 40 of the BSF Act, 1968 and was sentenced to be dismissed from service.

2. Succinctly put, the relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as follows:

2.1. The Petitioner was working as Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force. It is alleged that on 26.07.2021, the Petitioner pointed his personal weapon towards his superior officer and used insubordinate language towards them. It is further alleged that the Petitioner neglected to obey the orders and acted in a manner that was

prejudicial to the discipline of the force. Based on the said allegations, the following charges were framed against the Petitioner :

2.2. The Petitioner was tried by the Summary Security Force Court from 02.08.2021 to 04.08.2021 post which vide impugned order, the Petitioner was found guilty of the said charges and was sentenced to be dismissed from service.

2.3. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a Statutory Petition against the impugned order which also came to be dismissed on 26.10.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the Petitioner was never provided with any opportunity to defend the charges levied against him. He submitted that the Petitioner was never summoned or afforded opportunity to lead evidence or cross examine the witnesses. He submitted that the off-record trial proceedings initiated against the Petitioner without giving him any opportunity to appear and defend the charges levied against him vitiates the entire

trial. He consequently prays that the impugned order be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned SPC submitted that the contention of the Petitioner is contrary to the record. She submitted in the order dated 26.10.2022 whereby the Statutory Petition against the impugned order was disposed of, it was specifically noted that the Petitioner did not examine any witness in his defense, however, he had given a written statement before the Court. She further submitted that the order dated 26.10.2022 also records that the Petitioner had carried out cross examination of almost all the prosecution witnesses. She consequently submitted that the present petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the parties and has perused the record. The original record pertaining to the SSFC Trial Proceeding of the Petitioner has also been handed over.

6. The principal argument pressed by the Petitioner is that the trial proceedings stood vitiated since the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to lead evidence or cross examine the witnesses. It has been urged that since the Petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself on the charges levied against him, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Taking note of the limited grievance of the Petitioner, this Court turns its gaze towards the original record pertaining to the SSFC Trial Proceeding of the Petitioner. Upon a perusal of the same, it transpires that the Petitioner was brought before the Court in the proceedings

conducted before the SSFC between 02.08.2021 – 04.08.2021. The original record materializes that the Petitioner was arraigned upon each charge mentioned in the chargesheet to which the Petitioner pleaded ‘not guilty.’ Evidently, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses being – SI Tejpal Singh, Bhupinder Vikas (Deputy Commandant), Ct Pramod Kumar, HC Surender Kumar, Ct Dipendra Tiwari, Inspector Shesh Pal in relation to the allegations levelled against the Petitioner. Fr