DIRECTOR GENERAL, BSF Vs. EX. CONSTABLE PADH SD
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Director General, Bsf
Ex. Constable Padh Sd
Click here to view full judgement.
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,C.J. -
(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Director General, Border Security Force (BSF), New Delhi and other three officers of the BSF,
challenging the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court dated
15.11.2017, whereby the writ petition filed by Ex. Constable Padh SD was allowed and the order dated passed by the Commandant 19 th Battalion BSF,
Shillong-appellant No.4 herein, dismissing the respondent/writ petitioner
from service and the subsequent order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the
Deputy Inspector General/CLO (D&L), BSF-appellant No.2 herein,
commuting the sentence of dismissal from service to rigorous imprisonment
for 89 days in Force custody and forfeiture of two years of service for the
purpose of promotion, were both quashed and set aside.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent/writ petitioner while serving as a Constable of E Coy under 19th Battalion,
BSF, Shillong, was charged under Sections 34(a) , 40 and 19(a) of the
Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short the Act of 1968 ) for the
"(a) Making a false allegation against a person subject to the Border Security Force Act , 1968 knowing such accusation to be false;
(b) Act prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Force;
(c) Absenting without leave;
(d) Absenting without leave."
(3.) Upon the Summary Security Force Court convened against the respondent/writ petitioner recording finding of guilt on the aforementioned
the above referred to charges, the Commandant 19th Battalion, BSF vide
order dated 13.09.2014, awarded him penalty of dismissal from service.
Being aggrieved, the respondent/writ petitioner filed writ petition [WP (C)
No.177 of 2015] before this Court. While declining to interfere with the
impugned order 13.09.2014, this Court disposed of the same vide judgment
dated 19.04.2016, directing the respondent/writ petitioner to take recourse
to appropriate statutory remedy in accordance with law. The
respondent/writ petitioner then preferred an appeal under Section 117(2) of
the Act of 1968 read with Rule 167(2) of the Border Security Rules, 1969
(for short the Rules of 1969 ) before the Appellate Authority viz.-the
Direction General of BSF, on 02.05.2016. The Appellate Authority allowed
the appeal in part and substituted the sentence of dismissal from service by
rigorous imprisonment for 89 days in Force custody and forfeiture of two
years of service for the purpose of promotion. These two orders have been
set aside and quashed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned
in the present appeal proceedings.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.