Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.8.2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 6281 of 1991, by which he has set aside the order dated 31.3.1990, passed by the Commandant, STC, BSF, Meru, Hazaribagh, holding the Summary Security Force Court, dismissing the sole respondent from service. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge also gave opportunity to the appellants to proceed further in the matter according to law and also directed for the reinstatement of the petitioner-respondent with 50% salary for the period he was out of service as a result of the order of dismissal. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the writ-petitioner-respondent was appointed as a constable in Border Security Force (for short the B.S.F.) on 17.7.1969. In 1991, he was posted as a constable in the administration wing of the B.S.F., Training Centre and School Hospital, Meru, Hazaribagh. One Smt. Rupia Devi was working as an Aya (maid-servant) in the said hospital and she alleged that in between 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. in the night of 8.1.1990, the writ petitioner-respondent entered into her room and with an intent to outrage her modesty he touched her cheek and covered her mouth with his hand. On 19.2.1990, she made a complaint about the aforesaid conduct of the respondent before the higher authorities and, thereafter, the charge was framed by the Commandant, S.T.C., B.S.F. against the respondent for committing a civil offence and the case was referred to the D.I.G. and Commandant, B.S.F., T.C. & S. Hazaribagh, who ordered for trial of the respondent by Summary Security Force Court on 29.3.1990 in terms of the provision contained in section 74 (2) of the Bordar Security Force Act, 1968 (for short the Act) and the charge against the respondent is as follows: "Committing a civil offence, that is to say, using criminal force to a woman, intending to outrage her modesty, punishable u/s 354 I.P.C." 3. Before the Summary Security Force Court, five witnesses, including said Smt. Rupia Devi, were examined in support of the allegation. The respondent examined one witness in defence. Before the Summary Security Force Court, five witnesses, including said Smt. Rupia Devi, were examined in support of the allegation. The respondent examined one witness in defence. The trial was conducted and after conclusion of the trial, the charges were proved and the proceeding was placed before the reviewing officer, namely, D.I.G. and Commandant, BSF, TRG Centre & School, for confirmation and counter-signature, who confirmed the proceeding and counter-signed the same and, thereafter, on 31.3.1990, the Commandant ordered for dismissal of the respondent from service and the appellant was informed about the dismissal order, which he has admitted in paragraph 13 of the writ petition. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner-respondent filed a petition under section 117 of the Act requesting for the copies of the entire record of the case and the entire proceeding, including the order of dismissal, was sent to the petitioner respondent by a registered letter dated 12.3.1991, a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ application. 5. The writ petitioner-respondent challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that there was no evidence to support the allegation made by Smt. Rupia Devi and there was delay in reporting the matter to the higher authorities and there was no application of mind by the authority while passing the order of dismissal. 6. It appears that during the course of argument of the writ application before the learned Single Judge it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the trial in the Summary Security Force Court has been held in breach of the provisions contained in section 74(2) of the Act as the trial proceeded without referring the matter to the higher authority i.e. the D.I.G. As the charge against the respondent was framed under section 46 of the Act and the same not being simple hurt or theft, it should not have been tried, summarily in view of the provisions contained in rule 47 of the B.S.F. Rules. 7. As appears from the counter-affidavit, the case of the appellants was that on the basis of complaint made by Smt. Rupia Devi, the Commandant after, framing of the charge, referred the case to the D.I.G. & Commandant, T.C. & S., Hazaribagh, on 28.3.1990, who ordered the case to be tried by the Summary Security Force Court on 29.3.1990 under section 74(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the trial was conducted under the aforesaid provision. Witnesses were examined on behalf of both the parties and, thereafter, the proceeding was conducted in accordance with law and the respondent was dismissed from service on 31.3.1990 and the order of dismissal was communicated to him. Later on, he prayed for the copies of the relevant documents, which were also supplied to him at her village-home address as per his request. 8. The learned Single Judge accepted the aforesaid two grounds, firstly that the charges having been framed under section 46 of the Act and the same not being simple hurt or theft, it should not have been tried summarily in view of the provision contained in Rule 47 of the Rules and secondly that the Commandant having framed charge and not having referred the matter for trial by the Summary Security Force Course, the trial was vitiated for the breach of the provisions contained in section 74(2) of the Act. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants firstly submitted that this court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application; inasmuch as the civil offence was committed by the respondent with the said Smt. Rupia Devi in Training Centre and School Hospital, Meru, Hazaribagh and the proceeding was also conducted at Hazaribagh as well as the order of dismissal was communicated to the respondent at the said Training Centre, Hazaribagh as admitted by him in the writ application. In that view of the matter, the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. Secondly he submitted that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the respondent under sections 117 and 118 of the Act and as such on this ground also, the writ application should not have been entertained by this Court. Thirdly, he submitted that the learned Single Judge has misconceived the legal provisions of the Act and Rules and wrongly held that the Summary Security Force Court proceedings were initiated without reference to the higher authorities. Thirdly, he submitted that the learned Single Judge has misconceived the legal provisions of the Act and Rules and wrongly held that the Summary Security Force Court proceedings were initiated without reference to the higher authorities. As a matter of fact, the Commandant referred the matter to the higher authority i.e. D.I.G. in terms of the provisions contained in section 74(2) of the Act and thereafter, proceeded to hold the Summary Security Force Court and this is evident from Annexure 4 itself filed by the writ petitioner-respondent and a clear statement to that effect was made in the counter-affidavit, which was no specifically denied by the writ petitioner. He further submitted that Rule 47 of the Rules is not applicable with regard to the trial held by the Summary Security Force Court, on the other hand, the same is applicable when the trial is held summarily by other authorities for minor punishments as provided under the provisions of the Act. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent submitted that the appellant cannot now raise the question of jurisdiction and so also of the efficacious alternative remedy for the reason that they did not raise the question of maintainability of the writ application on the aforesaid two grounds before the learned Single Judge. He supported the order of the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the trial under Summary Security Force Court was vitiated because the trial was not sustainable in view of the provisions contained in Rule 47 of the Rules and secondly that without reference to the higher authority i.e. the D.I.G., the proceeding under the aforesaid procedure/ provision was conducted, which is a breach of the provision contained in section 74(2) of the Act. In the other words, he supported the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. 11. Admittedly, the appellants have not raised the question of want of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as well as the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy before the learned Single Judge. The order of dismissal was communicated to the appellant at his village home falling within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and the alternative remedy was in the nature of representation/revision, which cannot be termed as an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid two grounds. 12. The order of dismissal was communicated to the appellant at his village home falling within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and the alternative remedy was in the nature of representation/revision, which cannot be termed as an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid two grounds. 12. So far as the other point raised on behalf of the appellants is concerned, we are of the view that before dealing with the said point, it is necessary to state, in brief, the relevant provisions having relevancy on the question in controversy. The Act was enacted to provide for the constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for ensuring the security of the borders of India and for matters connected therewith. Civil offence has been defined under section 2 (d), which means an offence triable by a criminal court, Section 46 of the Act deals with Civil offences, which runs as follows: "Subject to the provisions of section 47, any person subject to this Act who at any place in, or beyond, India commits any civil offence, shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if charged therewith under this section shall be liable to be tried by a security Force Court and, on conviction, be punishable as follows, that is to say (a) If the offence is one which would oe punishable under any law in force in India with death, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment, assigned for the offence, by the punishment, assigned for the offence, by the aforesaid law and such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and (b) in any other case, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment, assigned for the offence by the law in force in India, or imprisonment for term which may extend to seven years, or such less punishment as in this Act mentioned." 13. Section 47 of the Act deals with the civil offences not triable by Security Force Court, which runs as follows: "47. Section 47 of the Act deals with the civil offences not triable by Security Force Court, which runs as follows: "47. Civil offences not triable by Security Force Court.A person subject to this Act who commits an offence of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against, or of rape in relation to, a person not subject to this Act shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall not be tried by a Security Force Court, unless he commits any of the said offences; (a) while on active duty; or (b) at any place out side India; or (c) at any place specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf:" 14. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid two provisions, it is clear that any person, subject to the Act, who commits a civil offence, shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence under the Act and shall be liable to be tried by a Summary Security Force Court and on conviction shall be punished as mentioned therein. According to section 47 of the Act, a person subject to the Act, committing an offence of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or rape in relation to, a person not subject to the Act, shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence against the Act and shall not be tried by a Security Force Court unless he commits an offence while on active duty; or at any place outside India; or at any place specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf. 15. Section 48 of the Act provides punishments awardable by Security Force Courts, which include dismissal from service. Section 64 of the Act provides that there shall be three types of Security Force Courts, namely, (i) General Security Force Courts; (ii) Petty Security Force Courts; and (iii) Summary Security Force Courts. The composition and power of the said Courts are provided under Chapter VI of the Act, under which the aforesaid 64 also falls. Section 70 provides that a Summary Security Force Court may be held by the Commandant of any unit of the Force and he alone shall constitute the Court and section 74 contains a provision with regard to the powers of a Summary Security Force Court, which runs as follows: "74. Section 70 provides that a Summary Security Force Court may be held by the Commandant of any unit of the Force and he alone shall constitute the Court and section 74 contains a provision with regard to the powers of a Summary Security Force Court, which runs as follows: "74. Powers of a Summary Security Force Court (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a Summary Security Force Court may try any offence punishable under this Act. (2) When there is no grave reason for immediate action and reference can without detriment to discipline be made to the officer empowered to convene a Petty Security Force Court for the trial of the alleged offender, an officer, holding a Summary Security Force Court shall not try without such reference any offence punishable under any of the sections 14, 17 and 46 of this Act, or any offence against the officer holding the Court. (3) A Summary Security Force Court may try any person subject to this Act and under the command of the Officer holding the Court, except an officer, or a subordinate officer. (4) A Summary Security Force Court may pass any sentence which may be passed under this Act, except the sentence of death or of imprisonment for a term exceeding the limit specified in sub-section (5). (5) The limit referred to in subsection (4) shall be, (a) one year, if the officer holding the Security Force Court has held either the post of Superintendent of Police or a post declared by the Central Government by notification to be equivalent thereto, for a period of not less than three years or holds a post of higher rank than either of the said posts; and (b) three months, in any other case." 16. Under the aforesaid provision, the Summary Security Court has power to try any offence punishable under the Act and according to sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Act, if there is no grave reason for immediate action and reference can be made to an officer empowered to convene a Petty Security Force Court for the trial of the alleged offender, without detriment to discipline, an officer, holding a Summary Security Force Court shall not try any offence punishable under section 46 of the Act or other sections mentioned therein without such reference to the officer empowered to convene a Petty Security Force Court. 17. 17. The Border Security Force Rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of the power under section 141 of the Act. Chapter VII of the Rules deals with investigation and summary disposal and it contains Rules 43 to 52. From the reading of the provisions contained therein, it is clear that the summary disposal or summary trial is a different thing than the Summary Security Force Court. Rule 45 of the Rules provides that after hearing the charge, the Commandant, who is holding the summary trial, may award any of the punishments which he is empowered to award, or dismiss the charge, or remand the accused, for preparing a record of evidence or for preparation of an abstract of evidence against him, or remand him for trial by a Summary Security Force Court. The procedure for Summary Security Force Courts has been dealt with under Chapter XI of the Rules, which contains Rules 133 to 161, where in detailed provisions have been contained as to the recording of evidence and other details. The summary trial has been provided for minor offences as provided under the provisions of sections 52, 53 & 54 of the Act. Holding of summary trial under the aforesaid Rules is altogether a different thing than holding proceedings under the Summary Security Force Court. Rule 47 provides that a charge for an offence mentioned therein including section 46 of the Act, which deals with civil offences, other than that for simple hurt or theft, or a charge for abetment of or an attempt to commit any of the offences mentioned therein, shall not be dealt with summarily. Thus, an offence under section 46 of the Act, except minor offences, cannot be dealt with summarily under Rule 47. 18. Thus, the learned Single Judge, in our view, has committed an error of law in holding that Rule 47 of the Rules is attracted in the case of Summary Security Force Court. 19. There is no violation of section 74 (2) of the Act also, which provides that when there is no grave reason for taking action, the proceeding under the Summary Security Force Court cannot be resorted to unless the matter has been referred to the higher authority empowered to convene a Petty Security Force Court. 20. 19. There is no violation of section 74 (2) of the Act also, which provides that when there is no grave reason for taking action, the proceeding under the Summary Security Force Court cannot be resorted to unless the matter has been referred to the higher authority empowered to convene a Petty Security Force Court. 20. In paragraph 14 of the counter- affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge, it was stated that "after framing the charge sheet on the basis of Record of Evidence the case was referred to DIG & Commandant BSF Training Centre and School Hazaribagh on 28.3.1990 who ordered the case to be tried by Summary Security Force Court on 29th March, 1990 as per section 74(2) of the BSF Act, 1968". 21. Thus, it is clear that the proceeding was conducted in accordance with law and after following the procedure and there was no violation of section 74{2) of the Act and Rule 47 of the Rules has no application in the matter. The charge against the respondent is with regard to commission of a civil offence, which can be tried by the Summary Security Force Court and the same was tried, witnesses where examined and opportunity to the respondent was given. This court sitting in appeal cannot assume the function of the Summary Security Force Court and reappraise the materials to find out as to whether a different view on the same evidence can be taken or not. 22. Thus, we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, the order/ judgment passed by him is set aside. 23. In the result, this appeal stands allowed.