- (1.) The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the BSF on 13.4.1991. He was detailed for collection of official Dak from Central diary, FHQ BSF, New Delhi. Accordingly, he was sent to SHQ BSF Amritsar, vide movement order No. Estt/3002/24/MO/2000/2828-30, dated 30.7.2000, alongwith No. 89151257 Const Kalipada Mandal of 140 Bn BSF for further move to Central Diary, FHQ BSF, New Delhi, and necessary letters etc. were provided to him. He reached New Delhi on 31.7.2000 and collected the Dak from Central Diary, FHQ, BSF, New Delhi on 3.8.2000, as per entry, made in his movement order. After collection of Dak, the petitioner telephoned the Second-in-Command of his Unit on 3.8.2000 and told him that some work was yet to be done. The Second-in- Command, realizing that 5th and 6th August 2000 were holidays, directed the petitioner to report back forthwith by boarding the evening train for Amritsar. The petitioner did not do so and was marked absent from 4.8.2000 to 7.8.2000. On his return, as he could not explain his conduct, he was awarded seven days RI in force custody for absence without leave. While in force custody and while undergoing rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner refused to take meals from 10.8.2000 to 11.8.2000 in protest against the punishment and also refused to perform the pack drill on all seven days. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, the petitioner was tried by the Summary Security Force Court, under Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short herein after referred to as "the Act"), on two charges, namely, for an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force. On being made aware of the charges, the petitioner pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to dismissal from service. The petitioner thereafter preferred a statutory petition, under Section 117 of the Act. Vide order dated 28.6.2001, the said petition was dismissed.
(2.) The petitioner has impugned the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court, the order of punishment and the order of confirmation thereof.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has confined arguments to two submissions, namely, the petitioner's right to a free and fair trial stood vitiated, and the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the offence alleged.;