JUDGMENT : Jay Sengupta, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service after setting aside the order of appellate authority vide no. 06/137/2007/SP/BSF/CLO (D&L)/9229-33 dated 31.12.2007 confirming the order of the Commanding 46 Bn. BSF vide no. Estt/SSFC/46 Bn./2007/129991-96 dated 24.09.2007 with all admissible benefits including arrear salary. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the Border Security Force as a Constable in February, 2003. He was posted at 46 Battalion, BSF at the relevant date. On 10.06.2007 the Commandant 46 Bn., BSF Roopnagar, Coochbehar issued a letter suspending the petitioner from his service. A disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner for committing an offence under Section 40 of the BSF Act. An order was passed on 24.09.2007 by the Summary Security Force Court dismissing the petitioner from service. On 08.10.2007 the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Director General of Border Security Force. On 31.12.2007 the appeal was dismissed. 3. Mr. Swarnendu Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows. The petitioner was in the service of the Border Security Force since February, 2003. He had an unblemished service record of 4 years in which he had received one cash reward. The day of the incident i.e., 10.06.2007 was the petitioner’s first day of posting at Gate no. 3 along with another personnel namely, Ashok Som (the petitioner in WPA 2076 of 2008). The petitioner and the other were in the post for less than 2 hours on the relevant date. The gate closed at 8.30 hours and reopened only at 8.40 hours. It was the time when one Khitish Barman wanted to cross the gate and was prevented by the petitioner. All the villagers with valid documents were allowed to cross the gate for cultivation. The said Khitish Barman was prevented as he did not have the requisite documents. In order to wreck vengeance, the said Khitish Barman, the sole eye-witness of this case, tried to foist up a case against the petitioner and the other. The evidence of Khitish Barman itself was based on probability. He talked about 90 cattle at 8.30 hours, by which time the gate was closed. Once he said that he was there for labour work. The evidence of Khitish Barman itself was based on probability. He talked about 90 cattle at 8.30 hours, by which time the gate was closed. Once he said that he was there for labour work. But, in the cross-examination he admitted that he did not get any work and was standing and watching the incidents. There were innumerable discrepancies in the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the defence witnesses was quite contrary to this. There were locals who made a mass representation. Soon after the gate reopened at 8.40 hours, at about 9.00 hours the writ petitioner and the other were removed from the spot and were taken into custody. The petitioner was released only on 21.09.2007. A charge-sheet was issued on 22.09.2007. The writ petitioner was dismissed by a nonspeaking order dated 24.09.2007 by the same person who issued the charge-sheet. On this reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported at (2016) 1 SCC 724 . The other issue was the purported recovery of a bag containing money from near the place of occurrence. The prosecution witnesses gave evidence that a polybag containing money was lying on the ground near the fence about 50 to 60 yards from Gate no. 3. No one had found any money on the writ petitioner. Nor had anyone seen the writ petitioner receiving money from anyone. Mere recovery of money from somewhere by itself could not prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused in respect of payment of bribe. On this reliance was placed on a decision reported at (2011) 6 SCC 450 . In the instant case, the petitioner’s livelihood was at stake. Reliance was placed on the unreported decision in Balwinder Singh Versus Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 7875/2007. The appellate authority could not rectify the defect in the order of the disciplinary authority by trying to furnish reasons. On this reliance was placed on Balwinder Singh (supra). Besides, the Commandant issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner could not have presided over the Court. There is no proof that the rule regarding presence of two officers during the proceeding was followed. Therefore, it was evident that the termination of service of the petitioner was without any cogent evidence and was illegal. 4. Mr. Anirban Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submitted as follows. There is no proof that the rule regarding presence of two officers during the proceeding was followed. Therefore, it was evident that the termination of service of the petitioner was without any cogent evidence and was illegal. 4. Mr. Anirban Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submitted as follows. On 10.06.2007 after 46 Bn. BSF had just taken over responsibility only 48 hours back, the petitioner was detailed at the Gate no. 3 in the first shift of duty. Gitalda Maricha village was located very closed to the said gate. This had become notorious for passage for smugglers. Two other Constables Vikash Kumar and Suvasis Dey, both from BOP Baramircha, were detailed on OP/Day Patrolling duty in the first shift from 06.00-12.00 hours at point no. 3. Sub S.N. Sharma directed both the constables to patrol the AOR and not just stand on the gate together leaving the remaining AOR unattended. On the same day, the Head Constable (General) received a source information about smuggling activities in full swing at the Gate no. 3. He rushed to the place of occurrence along with Sub Inspector Prithipal Singh and Constable/driver Rafiqul Chaudhury. As they reached the road-bend short of the Gate no. 3, they found that 4 to 5 civilians were driving away 4 cattle from India to Bangladesh side. They also passed Constable Vikash Kumar 100 yards short of the said gate and reached the Gate no. 3, halted their motorcycle at the gate. Ashok Som who was standing near the gate till then started walking hurriedly towards their direction. After seeing them and hearing the sound of motor cycle, he asked smugglers at the gate to immediately take their remaining cattle away, who did so. Then he immediately put all the money taken from the smugglers for cattle smuggling inside a plastic bag and walked towards the direction where the motorcycle came from. He threw the bag towards the fence. He also directed those two constables to run away from the said gate to different directions. The civilian Khitish Barman saw the entire incident. The Head Constable (General) also saw some civilians erasing hoof marks near the International Border. A total amount of 8,700/-was found in the bag. It was clear from the fresh hoof marks on the ground that approximately 20 cattle had gone ahead from the said gate to Bangladesh. The civilian Khitish Barman saw the entire incident. The Head Constable (General) also saw some civilians erasing hoof marks near the International Border. A total amount of 8,700/-was found in the bag. It was clear from the fresh hoof marks on the ground that approximately 20 cattle had gone ahead from the said gate to Bangladesh. As the team was returning after conducting search they saw more cattle being driven to Bangladesh by a civilian at a distance. A Staff Court of enquiry was ordered to enquire about the incident. Accordingly, record of evidence (ROE) was ordered against the petitioner. The (ROE) was prepared in the presence and within the hearing of the petitioner and he was given opportunity under Rules 48 (2) (3) and 4 of the BSF Rules to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, to make a statement in his defence and to produce defence witnesses. The petitioner cross-examined most of the witnesses and made a statement in his defence. After going through the facts and evidence, the Unit Commander decided to try the petitioner by a Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). The petitioner was tried and the said Court found the petitioner guilty of the charges framed and awarded a sentence ‘to be dismissed from service’. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for accepting money from smugglers for providing safe passage by unspecified number of cattle into Bangladesh. The purported discrepancies as pointed out on behalf of the petitioner were far too insignificant. The evidence of Khitish Barman an independent witness could not be disregarded only by conjuring up stories. The petitioner was not able to discredit the said witness and show any plausible reason as to why he would lie and trap the petitioner and others. The petitioner got sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at the time of ROE. All formalities under the BSF Act were followed in this regard in respect of the trial. Therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice as regards the contention of the petitioner that he was not given enough time to get ready for the SSFC. It was apparent that under Rule 63 (6) the provisions of sub rules (2), (3) shall not apply in relation to a trial before SSFC. Therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice as regards the contention of the petitioner that he was not given enough time to get ready for the SSFC. It was apparent that under Rule 63 (6) the provisions of sub rules (2), (3) shall not apply in relation to a trial before SSFC. In such cases, the period of four days contained in sub-rule (4) shall be construed as 24 hours. Rule 149 of the BSF Rules, 1969 provided that the finding on every charge upon which the accused was arraigned shall be recorded and except as mentioned in this rules, shall be simply a finding of guilty and or of not guilty. Therefore, the question of the order being an unreasoned one could not be raised by the petitioner. On this, reliance was placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered on 16.02.2010 in Union of India and Anr. Versus Dinesh Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 1208/2010. On the question of judicial review it was submitted that the scope for review was very limited. It was not the power of an appellate authority and a High Court should not try to re-appreciate evidence. On this, reliance was placed on Union of India Versus Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521 , the State Bank of India and Ors. Versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212 . As regards the punishment imposed vis-a-vis Rule 48(c) of the BSF rules, dismissal from service was a lesser punishment compared to other punishments like life imprisonment. The judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner were clearly distinguishable on facts. There was no harm if the Commandant who issued the charge-sheet also tried the delinquent. 5. I heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the writ petition, the affidavits and the written note filed on behalf of the petitioner. Whether the Commandant issuing the charge-sheet could have held the Summary Security Force Court 6. It is true that the Commandant of a unit of the force may hold a Summary Security Force Court. However, it is trite law that the person who had enquired into the charges and/or issued a charge-sheet cannot sit in trial over the same. First, such a person would be seen as interested in the success of the charge-sheet. It is true that the Commandant of a unit of the force may hold a Summary Security Force Court. However, it is trite law that the person who had enquired into the charges and/or issued a charge-sheet cannot sit in trial over the same. First, such a person would be seen as interested in the success of the charge-sheet. Secondly, if he had inquired into the charges, then he would be in the shoes of a witness. In either event, such a person cannot adjudicate the case of the proposed delinquent on his own charge-sheet. The procedure then would be so unacceptable that a chance of prejudice would be deeply ingrained in it. The sufferer need not have to prove prejudice separately. If such a thing is allowed, then the whole edifice of administration of justice vis-a-vis the principles of natural justice would crumble. Right of hearing 7. First, the petitioner has contended that he was not given enough time to get ready for the SSFC. But, the Respondent replied that the provisions of Sub-Rules (2) to (3) of Rule 63 of the BSF Rules 1969 would not apply to a trial before SSFC. In such event the period of four days contained in Sub-Rule (4) shall be construed as 24 hours. Therefore, the law in this regard was scrupulously followed. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at the ROE. The ROE was prepared in his presence and within the hearing of the petitioner. He was purportedly given opportunity under Rule 48 (2) (3) and (4) of the BSF Rules to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses to make a statement in his defence and to produce in his defence witnesses. In fact, the petitioner cross-examined most of the witnesses and made a statement in his defence. From this, it cannot be said that he did not have sufficient time to prepare his defence. Does taking of bribe need to be proved? 8. The respondents’ case is that the petitioner and others were practically caught red handed allowing smugglers to illegally traffic cattle from India to Bangladesh through the international border. Apart from evidence of the eye-witness and the immediate post-occurrence witnesses, the attending circumstances were to be taking into consideration. In this context, whether the authorities could prove offer and acceptance of bribe is inconsequential. It assumes significance in a case based solely on taking of bribe. Apart from evidence of the eye-witness and the immediate post-occurrence witnesses, the attending circumstances were to be taking into consideration. In this context, whether the authorities could prove offer and acceptance of bribe is inconsequential. It assumes significance in a case based solely on taking of bribe. That is why the decision relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in this context is distinguishable on facts. Finding of guilt 9. Rule 149 of the BSF Rules provides that a finding on every charge upon which the accused was arraigned shall be recorded and except as mentioned in the Rules, shall be recorded simply as a finding of “guilty” or of “not guilty”. That may not mean that the Court is debarred from assigning reasons for arriving at a decision. The Rule seems to emphasize that there will only be two kinds of outcome as opposed to an any third or a mixed outcome. 10. In S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an authority exercising quasi-judicial function must record reasons for its decision irrespective of whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Reasons should be clear and explicit through may not be elaborate. The requirement is greater at the original stage. However, the Court also held that as per the relevant Army Rules, no reasons were required to be recorded at the stage of recording of findings and sentence by a Court Martial or on confirmation of the same. Relying on this and in respect of corresponding substantially in pari materia Rules of the BSF, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar (supra) held that reasons would not be required to be given by the SSFC under Rule 149 or by the appellate authority under Rule 117(2). Limited scope of interference 11. A writ Court is not supposed to extensively appreciate evidence in order to find out whether a Tribunal or a Security Force Court has properly appreciated evidence or not. It can only act in exceptional circumstances where there is a violation of principles of natural justice or where the impugned order or proceeding shocks the conscience of the Court. On this one may refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chatuvedi’s Case (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 12. It can only act in exceptional circumstances where there is a violation of principles of natural justice or where the impugned order or proceeding shocks the conscience of the Court. On this one may refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chatuvedi’s Case (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 12. It is true that bulk of the parameters seem to weigh in favour of the respondent authorities. But, a person’s life and liberty can only be decided on the touchstone of compliance of principles of natural justice. One small yet vital breach in the scheme of things can be fatal. Here, the very initiation and conducting of the adjudication proceeding were grossly flawed. At the cost of repetition, an officer who issued a charge-sheet against a proposed delinquent cannot act as the Court where such charge is to be proved. If allowed, this would strike a death knell to the basic principles of natural justice. 13. From the facts and circumstances of this case as delineated above and in view of the discussions made on the questions of law involved, this Court is of the view that the holding of the Summary Security Force Court by the same officer who had issued charge-sheet is patently erroneous and is anti thetic to the basic tenets of natural justice such that it shocks the conscience of this Court. 14. Considering the long passage of time, no fruitful purpose would be served if the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration at the stage of SSFC. 15. In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 16. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement and/or back wages and other benefits, as may be applicable in accordance with law. 17. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 18. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.