IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 Decided on : 28.08.2025 EX. CONST. RAJESH KUMAR . .Appellant Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate for Mr. D. S. Kauntae, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Senior Panel Counsel for respondents- UOI.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 03.04.2012 passed by learned Single Bench by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the order passed by Summary Security Force Court, by which he has been dismissed from service, has been rejected, which is causing prejudice to the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the allegations levelled against the appellant were that he was in an inebriated state while he was performing the duties assigned to him and while performing his duties he had fired 13 rounds by using a fire arm without any plausible reason. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the proceedings initiated before the Summary Security Force Court a decision was reached upon, which decision was against the appellant but proper opportunity to defend the allegations was not given to appellant and the proceedings initiated against the appellant was reached upon at conclusion of finding him guilty by the authorities concerned only on the ground that the allegations alleged against appellant were conceded by the appellant himself, whereas, the same was done in-violation of provisions of Rule 142 (2) of the Border Security Force Rules (for short the Rules ).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the material evidence which was brought on record against the appellant was supplied to him on 12.05.2009 i.e. only two days before from the initiation of the proceedings against him and the appellant was not given adequate time to prepare his case, whereas the same should have been furnished to him much prior to initiation of the proceedings so that the appellant can defend the allegations alleged against him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that keeping in view the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (c) No. 10858 of 2009 titled as Prema Ram Ex BSF Constable versus Union of India, decided on 05.03.2025 wherein it has been held that unless and until the statements made by personnel concerned conceding guilt is signed by the delinquent concerned, the Rule

142 (2) of the Rules could not have been brought into operation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service upon the appellant, his 13 years of service, which he rendered in his credit, has not been kept in mind by the authorities concerned and the major punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed upon the appellant, which punishment is disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against him.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the pleas which are being raised by the appellant in the present appeal, have already been raised before the learned Single Judge and the same have already been dealt with reasonably by the learned Single judge while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 03.04.2012 and the said arguments are now being re-argued by the counsel for the appellant, which is not permissible under an appeal preferred against order of learned Single Judge.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that during the conduction of the proceedings against the appellant , he was given the benefit of assistance of Assistant Commandant, who was the friend of the appellant, and thereafter, keeping in view the fact that the charges levelled against the appellant were conceded by him and eventually an appropriate decision was reached upon by the competent Court