JUDGMENT : 1. This L.P.A. has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.04.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court quashing the order of dismissal passed by Summary Security Force Court constituted under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. 2. The appeal had filed beyond time by about 25 days and the delay was condoned by an order dated 11.01.2005. 3. We have heard both sides. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that there was an allegation against the petitioner along with some other members of the force of misbehaving with and using vulgar language and gestures towards the wives of certain other members of force. 4. Although, the report of the Court of Inquiry attributes more serious charges, but the original complaint made by the husband of one of the ladies and enclosed as Annexure-1 to this appeal, does not justify the aggravated allegations mentioned in the report of Court of Inquiry. 5. It is quite clear that with regard to the alleged incident and complaint, the D.I.G. constituted a Court of Inquiry under Chapter-XIV of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. According to Rule 175 of the said Rules, the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry were required to be submitted by the Presiding Officer of the Court of Inquiry to the officer who ordered such Court of Inquiry. Further according to the same Rule 175, such officer on receiving the proceedings, has two options as follows: (i) either to pass final orders on the proceedings himself, if he is empowered to do so, or (ii) to refer them (proceedings) to superior authority. 6. For some strange reason, the proceedings were forwarded not to the D.I.G., but to an inferior officer i.e. the Commandant. Thereupon, the Commandant ordered a Summary Security Force Court, which sentenced the appellant to dismissal from service. 7. In the pleadings in this appeal, a vague and inconsistent pleading has been made that the D.I.G. and Commandant passed the final orders for strict disciplinary action. 8. It is obvious that the D.I.G. and Commandant are two different Officers and Commandant is inferior to the D.I.G., therefore, they could not have passed the order together. 7. In the pleadings in this appeal, a vague and inconsistent pleading has been made that the D.I.G. and Commandant passed the final orders for strict disciplinary action. 8. It is obvious that the D.I.G. and Commandant are two different Officers and Commandant is inferior to the D.I.G., therefore, they could not have passed the order together. Further when the basis of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was that the Commandant and not the D.I.G. has passed the order, it was expected that in the appeal there should have been a clear cut pleading on that point with corroborative annexures. Thus, there was clear violation of Rule 175 of the Rules. 9. Further u/s 74(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, it is provided that when there is no grave reason for immediate action and when 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 certain Section including Section 46 of the Act. Section 46 defines "Civil Offences" which include offences punishable under any law in force in India, which include offences under the Indian Penal Code. 10. It has not been shown as to what was the grave reason for immediate action and why reference could not be made to the officer empowered to convene a 'petty security force court' u/s 66 of the Act. Therefore, the action of the Commandant ordering and holding a Summary Security Force Court himself is violative of the said provisions of the Act. 11. Considering all the above circumstances, we do not think that order of the learned Single Judge requires any interference in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.