Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 382 (PNJ)

Balram Pal v. Union Of India

2010-01-15

RANJIT SINGH

body2010
Judgment RANJIT SINGH, J. 1. The petitioner, a Head Constable in Border Security Force was found intoxicated while detailed on duty at BSF Post, Khemkaran, District Amritsar. On the night intervening 3rd and 4th August, 2000, Deputy Commandant, Gurdip singh had gone to the naka where the petitioner was detailed to perform duty and found him in an intoxicated state. The petitioner was directed to hand over the duty to Constable Ashok Kumar, who was the next person on duty. On the basis of complaint made by Deputy Commandant, Gurdip Singh, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 26.08.2000 for an offence under Sec.16 (c) of the Border Security Force Act (hereinafter referred to as act). Section 16 of the Act creates those offences which are more severely punishable on active duty than at other times. As per Sec.16 (c) any sentry who sleeps upon his post or is found intoxicated can be so charged and punished. In this case, the petitioner was found in intoxicated state at a post, while he was on active duty. Having so charged, the record of evidence was directed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for trial by Summary Security Force Court (ssfc for short), which was held on 30.11.2000. On 25.11.2000, the petitioner was served a charge sheet under Sec.16 (c) after conclusion of the record of evidence. Having served this charge sheet, the petitioner was put to trial on 30.11.2000, the petitioner statedly pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to be reduced to rank of Constable. Being aggrieved against his trial and the award of punishment as aforementioned, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court. 2. It may also need a notice that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which, however, was dismissed on 01.02.2001 with the following observation:- "Having regard to the provisions of appeal provided in Bihar border Security Force Act, I am not inclined to interfere with the order. Petitioner if so, advised may prefer appeal before the competent authority. The writ application is accordingly dismissed." It is thus seen that the petitioner was given liberty to prefer an appeal (of course meaning petition under the Act) before the competent authority. Petitioner if so, advised may prefer appeal before the competent authority. The writ application is accordingly dismissed." It is thus seen that the petitioner was given liberty to prefer an appeal (of course meaning petition under the Act) before the competent authority. The petitioner thereafter preferred a petition before the Directorate General, Board Security Force, New delhi which was statedly received on 07.03.2001. This petition was rejected and intimation in this regard conveyed to the petitioner on 25/26.06.2001. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the present petition to impugn his trial by SSFC besides challenging the order rejecting his petition (Annexure P-7 ). 3. In response to notice of motion issued, written statement by respondent No.2 is filed. It is pointed out that the petitioner was employed as Sentry with arms and ammunition at Naka ambush point No.1 at Ex. BOP pachharian. On being checked the petitioner was found intoxicated, not alert and slack on duty. This was observed by Company Commander while carrying out checking at Naka/ambush. 4. The petitioner did not seriously dispute this fact, as is revealed from his plea of guilty offered by him before the SSFC. On the basis of his plea, the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced as already noted. The respondent would thus plead that no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, no one appears to represent the petitioner. However, I have gone to the grounds of challenge raised in the petition. It is pleaded in para 4 of the petition that the petitioner was just called before the Summary Security Force Court and statement of witnesses were recorded. The petitioner claims that he was simply asked to put his signatures at the end of examination. He accordingly pleads that without knowing the exact details, the petitioner had put his signatures on 29.10.2000. Subsequently, the petitioner had received the impugned order awarding him sentence of reduction to rank of Constable. The averments made in para 4 of the petition have been denied by the respondents. It is obvious that the reference in para 4 of the petition is made to the record of evidence and not as to what transpired at ssfc trial. Concededly the evidence of the witnesses have been recorded in the presence of the petitioner. The averments made in para 4 of the petition have been denied by the respondents. It is obvious that the reference in para 4 of the petition is made to the record of evidence and not as to what transpired at ssfc trial. Concededly the evidence of the witnesses have been recorded in the presence of the petitioner. Subsequently, on the basis of this record of evidence, the petitioner was put to trial on 30.11.2000, where he pleaded guilty. The fact that the petitioner had pleaded guilty would be enough to take note of to observe that any defect in evidence as is projected in the petition would stand cured. Once the petitioner has pleaded guilty, he cannot ask for adjudication on merits of the facts alleged against him. The petitioner was specifically charged for having been intoxicated at a post by his company commander to which he pleaded guilty. The charge under Sec.16 (c) of the act would rightly be pressed against the petitioner, to which he pleaded guilty. There is no viable ground urged by the petitioner, which would call for interference. The appreciation of evidence as sought to be urged would not permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Limited scope of interference in such like proceedings is on the limited grounds and none of those grounds, in my view, exists to call for any interference in the impugned order. 5. The writ petition is thus without merit and is accordingly dismissed.