- (1.) An order of punishment, upheld in appeal, is challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner has been demoted from head constable to constable in the Border Security Force. Several charges were brought against the petitioner on the complaint of certain private persons that the petitioner had wrongfully detained a motorcycle on May 31, 2011 and released the same after obtaining a substantial bribe. The charges pertaining to the bribe and the like were not proved before the Security Force Court, but the petitioner was found guilty of not having reported the matter to his superior officer within reasonable time of the incident taking place.
(2.) The primary ground on which the order of punishment is challenged is that a defence witness, who was an assistant commissioner in the Force, had testified that routine matters are not required to be reported to any superior officer. The relevant part of the testimony of such witness is reproduced: "HCs(G) deployed on the border were required to give morning and evening 'OK' reports to their concerned Inspr(G) for border incidents such as apprehension, seizure etc., and if the matter is important in nature, HCs(G) were required to give information to Inspr(G) or DC(G) at SHQ also. As Inspector (G), I can say that simple checking of Motor Cycle or person, was a routine matter."
(3.) According to the petitioner, the testimony of such witness implied that the detention of a motorcycle was a routine matter and that such a routine matter was not required to be recorded in the daily report or otherwise brought to the notice of the superior officer of the concerned head constable.;