B. N. CHATURVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a constable in BSF, is aggrieved by punishment of dismissal from service awarded by Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) on being held guilty under three heads of charges. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted at 02 BN. Headquarters, Masimpur (Assam), engaged in counter insurgency operation. On 11th of October, 1999, he was found in a state of intoxication, for which disciplinary action was in process. He, however, deserted the Unit Lines on 18th of October, 1999 without seeking any permission from his superiors. He absented from duty unauthorisedly for 69 days. He reported back for duty on 25th of December, 1999 (AN ). A Court of Inquiry to find out the reasons for his desertion and to fix the responsibility, was held, which, eventually, held him blameworthy. ( 2 ) IN the first week of January, 2000, 02 BN BSF moved to Jiriben (Manipur) for internal security duties (CI-Ops duties ). There also the petitioner was once again found intoxicated on 11th January, 2000 while on active duty. ( 3 ) ON 20th of January, 2000, the Commandant made an order for Record of Evidence (ROE) against the petitioner for being absent for 69 days without leave and also being found intoxicated on two occasions. Record of Evidence was followed by another order dated 29. 1. 2000 from the Commandant putting the petitioner under close arrest and remanding him for trial by Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) on the following charges:- "first CHARGE bsf ACT SECTION 26 intoxication in that he, at BN HQ Masimpur on 11/10/99 was found in a state of intoxication. SECOND CHARGE bsf ACT SECTION 19 (a) absenting HIMSELF WITHOUT LEAVE in that he, at BN HQ Masimpur on 18/10/99 absented himself without leave from 0530 hrs till 1300 hrs on 25/12/99. Total period of absence from 18/10/99 to 25/12/99 = 69 days. THIRD CHARGE bsf ACT SECTION 26 intoxication in that he, at TH Q Unchathoi on 18/1/2000 was found in a state of intoxication. " ( 4 ) ON his plea of guilty, the SSFC recorded its finding of guilty against the petitioner on all the three charges. To a question if he wished to make any statement in relation to the charges, the petitioner simply pleaded for minimum punishment while acknowledging the guilt. " ( 4 ) ON his plea of guilty, the SSFC recorded its finding of guilty against the petitioner on all the three charges. To a question if he wished to make any statement in relation to the charges, the petitioner simply pleaded for minimum punishment while acknowledging the guilt. On being informed that he could make a statement if he so wished, the petitioner omitted to say anything relating to correctness or otherwise of the charges. He also declined to exercise the option of calling any witness in his defence. ( 5 ) THE petitioner assails the impugned order on the grounds that the SSFC trial was held in violation of Rules 63, 142 (2), 151 and 157, and that the sentence of dismissal from service awarded to him is disproportionate to the charges held proved against him. The sustainability of the impugned order is further questioned on the ground that the DIG, BSF failed to apply his mind and counter-signed the SSFC trial proceedings mechanically, in violation of Rule 161. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the SSFC proceedings culminating into punishment of dismissal from service are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be accorded all consequential benefits. ( 6 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT from the respondents discloses that the petitioner was posted with the 02 BN BSF on 22nd August, 1988 and remained there up to 3rd of August, 1991 before being further posted to Air Wing FHQ BSF, New Delhi. While serving with Air Wing, he was awarded 14 days imprisonment in Force custody for consuming liquor and misbehaving with duty staff of RML Hospital, New Delhi on 17th of October, 1994. The petitioner was posted back from Air Wing, FHQ to 02 BN BSF with effect from 18th of February, 1995. In the course of his service in 02 BN BSF, the petitioner was punished on three occasions before facing SSFC trial on 31st of January, 2000. The details of such previous punishments are: " (A) Under BSF Act Section-19 (d): awarded punishment of 28 days of RI on 1/10. 97. (b) Under BSF Act Section-26 : awarded punishment of 14 days RI on 13/4/98, (c) Under BSF Act Section-26 : awarded punishment of 14 days RI on 25/5/99. The details of such previous punishments are: " (A) Under BSF Act Section-19 (d): awarded punishment of 28 days of RI on 1/10. 97. (b) Under BSF Act Section-26 : awarded punishment of 14 days RI on 13/4/98, (c) Under BSF Act Section-26 : awarded punishment of 14 days RI on 25/5/99. " ( 7 ) THE respondents stand is that on 20th of January, 2000, on offence report being prepared in regard to the three charges, the petitioner was heard in terms of Rule 45 of BSF Rules and though, in the course of hearing, he pleaded guilty to all the charges, the Commandant decided to order preparation of Record of Evidence and it was on completion of Record of Evidence that the Commandant, on finding a prima facie case against him, ordered his trial by holding SSFC. It is asserted that the petitioner was duly informed of the order for being put to trial by SSFC on 31st of January, 2000 at 1100hours and a copy of ROE and chargesheet were handed over to him for preparing his defence. One Mehtab Singh Rathore, Assistant Commdant was detailed as a `friend to the accused. During SSFC trial, on petitioner pleading guilty to the charges, he was sentenced to dismissal from service by the Commandant after due application of his mind. It is pointed out that during his service of 12 years, 3 months and 11 days in the BSF, the petitioner was awarded various terms of imprisonment on four occasions before being dismissed from service. According to the respondents, the petitioner was habitual liquor taker and did not show any improvement even after suffering four bad entries in his service record and being verbally warned many a times. It is claimed that the SSFC trial was held strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of BSF Act and Rules and the punishment of dismissal from service, as awarded to the petitioner, was commensurate with the gravity of the offences committed by him and also keeping in view his past unsatisfactory service record. It is denied that there was non-application of mind on the part of DIG and that he counter-signed the SSFC proceedings without applying his mind. It is denied that there was non-application of mind on the part of DIG and that he counter-signed the SSFC proceedings without applying his mind. ( 8 ) ADVERTING to the grounds of challenge to the impugned order of dismissal from service, it is noticed that apart from pleading infraction of certain rules in holding SSFC trial, the petitioner rather admits that he had deserted the Unit Lines without seeking permission from the concerned authority and remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for 69 days, and further that on two occasions, as indicated in the chargesheet, he had consumed alcohol and was found in a state of intoxication while on active duty. He sought to justify his leaving the Unit Lines without seeking permission as well as unauthorised absence from duty for 69 days on the ground that his repeated requests for grant of leave in view of serious illness of his wife had gone unheeded leaving no option for him but to proceed to his native place without grant of leave and permission to leave the Unit Lines. No medical papers, indicating that his wife was really in a precarious condition on account of illness and that she was actually got treated for the ailment by him during the alleged period of his unauthorised absence from the Unit lines, appear to have been produced by the petitioner before the concerned authorities at any point of time, nor did he make mention of this fact in the course of his statement during the Record of Evidence. In any event, being a member of a disciplined force, the petitioner could not be expected to have acted in such an erratic and indisciplined manner. ( 9 ) IN regard to being found in a state of intoxication on two occasions, the petitioner instead of being repentful for the acts of indiscipline seeks to justify the same by pleading that he had not misbehaved with anyone. ( 10 ) THE petitioner was subjected to medical examination on 11th of October, 1999 on being found in a state of intoxication and the Chief Medical Officer of the Sector Hospital, BSF found him "drowsy, walking and talking abnormally and there was smell of alcohol from his mouth". Neither in the course of Record of Evidence nor during trial by SSFC, the petitioner sought to refute the correctness of any of the charges. Neither in the course of Record of Evidence nor during trial by SSFC, the petitioner sought to refute the correctness of any of the charges. Even in his writ petition, there is no refutation of these charges. ( 11 ) IN the aforesaid background where factual content of the charges was never sought to be denied by the petitioner, the effect of violation of various rules as agitated from the side of the petitioner may now be adverted to. Rule 51 provides that in case of an enrolled person, on receipt of Record of Evidence or abstract thereof, the Commandant may, after going through the record or abstract of evidence, (i) dismiss the charge, or (ii) re-hear the charge and award one of the summary punishments, or (iii) try the accused by a Summary Security Force Court where he is empowered so to do, or (iv) apply to a competent officer or authority to convene a court for the trial of the accused. In the present case, on receipt of Record of Evidence, the Commandant proceeded to hold trial of the petitioner by SSFC on 31st of October, 2000 at 1100 hours and punishing him to dismissal from service. Rules 59 to 64 provide for procedure to be followed in connection with convening of a General and Petty Security Force Court only and the same, thus, have no application to a trial by a Summary Security Force Court. In the circumstances, the Commandant was not obliged to act in compliance with Rule 63. ( 12 ) THE plea of the petitioner concerning alleged violation of Rule 63 is that he was not explained the charges levelled against him on 29th of January, 2000 when he was told that he would be tried by SSFC on 31st of January, 2000, nor he was apprised of his rights as an accused person, nor was given adequate time and opportunity to arrange for his defence. ( 13 ) AS far as procedure in regard to Record of Evidence is concerned, the petitioner has not aired any grievance in that respect. Original SSFC record shows that on completion of Record of Evidence, the Commandant informed the petitioner by way of a letter dated 29. 1. ( 13 ) AS far as procedure in regard to Record of Evidence is concerned, the petitioner has not aired any grievance in that respect. Original SSFC record shows that on completion of Record of Evidence, the Commandant informed the petitioner by way of a letter dated 29. 1. 2000 that he was to be tried by Summary Security Force Court for committing offences under Section 26, 19 (A) and 26 of the BSF Act on 31st of January, 2000 at 1100 hours at TAC Headquarters, Unchathol (Manipur ). This letter along with enclosures, consisting of a copy of chargesheet and Record of Evidence, was received by the petitioner on 30th of January, 2000 at 8. 15 a. m. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not refuted the charges levelled against him in the course of his statement during Record of Evidence, it would appear as if he had no intention of contesting the charges. On receipt of the letter dated 29. 1. 2000 requiring the petitioner to face trial by Summary Security Force Court, the petitioner did not plead for any further time on the ground that he had to arrange for his defence. The petitioner had already been supplied with a copy of chargesheet before Record of Evidence and was, thus, fully aware of the nature of charges on which he was to be tried by SSFC. Moreover, SSFC trial proceedings indicate that the charges were read over and properly explained to the petitioner before he had pleaded guilty thereto. ( 14 ) WITH respect to the plea of guilty which the petitioner made before the Summary Security Force Court, the petitioner contends that he had done so on being advised by some responsible person/s in the hope that the Commandant would take a lenient view in the matter. Looking at the statement which the petitioner had made in the course of Record of Evidence, his plea that he pleaded guilty to the charges during SSFC trial on somebody s assurance that a lenient view would be taken appears to lack conviction. The petitioner, it would appear, did not contest the charges from the very outset and the plea of guilty during SSFC trial was quite in keeping with his stand reflected from his statement made in the course of Record of Evidence. The petitioner, it would appear, did not contest the charges from the very outset and the plea of guilty during SSFC trial was quite in keeping with his stand reflected from his statement made in the course of Record of Evidence. Therefore, the contention that the plea of guilty was not voluntarily made cannot be accepted. ( 15 ) THE petitioner was informed by letter dated 29. 1. 2000 from the Commandant, which was received by him on 30th of January, 2000, that Shri Mehtab Singh Rathore, Assistant Commandant of the Unit, was appointed as his `friend for the purpose of SSFC trial and in case he had any objection against such appointment, he could inform the Commandant in writing by 30th of January, 2000. No objection in writing was ever made by the petitioner in regard to appointment of Shri Mehtab Singh Rathore as his `friend . Even on 31st of January, 2000 on being produced before the Commndant to face trial, the petitioner does not claim to have had raised any objection against the appointment of Shri Mehtab Singh Rathore, Assistant Commandant, as his `friend . In his writ petition, the petitioner asserts that it was only on being marched before the Commandant on 31st of January, 2000 to face SSFC trial that he was, for the first time, told that Shri Mehtab Singh Rathore, Assistant Commandant, would be acting as his `friend at the trial. This fact, as stated in the petition, is, however, contrary to the record. The petitioner had, in fact, come to know about the appointment of Shri Mehtab Singh Rathore as his `friend at the trial on 30th of January, 2000 when he had received the letter dated 29. 1. 2000 from the Commandant. The petitioner had full opportunity of seeking assistance, if any, from Shri Mehtab Singh at the trial. It, however, appears that as he, in fact, had no defence to make and was to plead guilty to the charges, he hardly required any assistance from Shri Mehtab Singh to defend himself against the charges. The argument that being under close arrest, the petitioner should have been allowed sufficient time to seek legal assistance appears to be without any substance. In spite of an opportunity afforded to raise objection, if any, against appointment of Shri Mehtab Singh as his `friend at trial, the petitioner did not do so. The argument that being under close arrest, the petitioner should have been allowed sufficient time to seek legal assistance appears to be without any substance. In spite of an opportunity afforded to raise objection, if any, against appointment of Shri Mehtab Singh as his `friend at trial, the petitioner did not do so. If he really thought of engaging any legal practitioner in his defence, he could have made a request in that regard. He, however, omitted to do this either. In terms of Rule 157, presence of a friend of the accused, including a legal practitioner, at the trial is simply to enable the accused to take the assistance of such a person. However, such person is not to be allowed to examine or cross-examine the witnesses or address the Court. Since the petitioner appears to have had no intention of contesting the charges, there was hardly an occasion for him to seek assistance from his `friend or a legal practitioner, if so, engaged at the trial. In the circumstances, the plea in regard to alleged violation of Rules 142 (2) and 157 must fail. ( 16 ) IN terms of Rule 151, consequent upon finding of `guilty , the Court is required to record of its own knowledge, or take evidence of any record, the general character, age, service, rank, and any recognised acts of gallantry, or distinguished conduct of the accused, and previous convictions of the accused either by a Security Force Court, or a criminal Court, any previous punishment awarded by an officer exercising authority under Section 53, the length of time he has been in arrest or in confinement on any previous sentence, and any decoration, or reward, of which he may be in possession or to which he may be entitled. A perusal of original record shows that this provision was duly observed by the Commandant. In the minutes of proceedings the SSFC noted that the petitioner had not been previously convicted by Security Force Court or any criminal Court. A Summary of entries in his service record, as extracted, are to the following effect:- " Within Last 12 Months Since Enrolment BSF ACT SECTION 26 1. BSF ACT SECTION 40 Intoxication An act prejudicial of the good order and discipline (14 days RI in Force of the force Custody on 25/5/99 ). (14 days RI in Force Custody on 17/10/94 ). 2. BSF ACT SECTION 40 Intoxication An act prejudicial of the good order and discipline (14 days RI in Force of the force Custody on 25/5/99 ). (14 days RI in Force Custody on 17/10/94 ). 2. BSF ACT SECTION 19 (d) Without Sufficient Cause failing to appear at the time fixed at the place appointed for duty (28 days RI in Force Custody on 1/10/97 ). 3. BSF ACT SECTION 26 Intoxication (14 days RI in Force Custody on 3/4/98 ). " ( 17 ) THE general character of the petitioner was noted as unsatisfactory. He was not in possession of any decorations or rewards. In the face of record of SSFC trial, as noticed above, the plea of the petitioner in regard to alleged violation of Rule 151 is held to be totally unfounded. ( 18 ) ON recording finding of guilty, the commandant passed sentence of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The sentence so awarded by the SSFC was counter-signed by DIG, BSF Candm on 15th of March, 2000. The entire record pertaining to Record of Evidence and SSFC trial proceedings were before the counter-signing authority and he counter-signed the sentence by the SSFC after going through the same. From the original record, one gets no impression that the DIG had blindly counter-signed the order of sentence by SSFC without looking into the record place before him. The plea of the petitioner that the DIG had counter-signed the order on sentence mechanically without applying his mind, has thus no basis. In the circumstances, no violation of Rule 161 is noticeable. ( 19 ) THREE decisions of this Court, in " Lachhman (Ex. Rect.) Vs. Union of India", 103 (2003) DLT 604 (DB); " Ex. Havildar K. P. Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others", 104 (2003) DLT 442 (DB); and " Nirmal Lakra Vs. Union of India and Others" (CWP. No. 5261 of 2001) decided on 30th of September, 2002, were cited in support of the contention that sentence of dismissal from service is liable to be set aside being disproportionate and bad in law. The decisions, referred to, however, turned on different set of facts and the view taken therein can hardly help bolster the arguments which have otherwise been adjudged without substance. The decisions, referred to, however, turned on different set of facts and the view taken therein can hardly help bolster the arguments which have otherwise been adjudged without substance. Keeping in mind the nature and gravity of charges of which the petitioner was found guilty and also his unsatisfactory past service record, the sentence of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner can by no means be held to be disproportionate warranting any interference by way of judicial review. ( 20 ) FINDING no merit, the petition is dismissed.